A thought on the irrealis construction
I remember having discussed here, that klingon doesn't possess the grammar to say "if klingon possessed an irrealis suffix, then I wouldn't be writing this post". So far so good.. I've been trying to find a way to overcome this problem, and I thought of the following approach: Lets say, I want to write "if I possessed foresight, I would have known my dog is stupid". If I write: {'op ben leSSov vIghajbe', 'ach ngugh vIghajchugh..} then the reader probably would understand what I'm trying to say. He would read "some years ago I don't have foresight, but at that time if I have it.." Intentionally, on the given translation I didn't write "some years ago I didn't have foresight, but at that time if I had it..", because I wanted to show that even if the mind of the reader doesn't "change to irrealis gear" then he will understand (hopefully) the intented meaning. So, I believe/think/assume/hope, that by an appropriate introduction one could find a workaround to compensate for the missing irrealis construction. Of course, I'm not writting this only to kill some time before I need to go to work again, so if someone could share some thoughts on this, then I would be happy (or sad depending on what he actually writes..) qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 11/3/2016 10:34 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
I remember having discussed here, that klingon doesn't possess the grammar to say "if klingon possessed an irrealis suffix, then I wouldn't be writing this post".
So far so good..
I've been trying to find a way to overcome this problem
While Klingon does not possess any formal irrealis grammar like a subjunctive mood, it can still express irrealis nonetheless. *bIje'be'chugh vaj bIHegh */if you do not buy then you will die/ Klingon employs no special grammar for the irrealis of /you will die,/ a statement which is not a prediction of definite future events but describes what will happen /only if/ you fail to buy. Even in English no special irrealis is used in the /you will die/ part.
if I possessed foresight, I would have known my dog is stupid
*QIp */dog/*wIj 'e' vISov, **leSSov vIghajchugh * Without using any special grammar, but employing context, this statement is already an expression of irrealis. /paq'batlh/ has a couple of examples. Here's one: *jIlay'DI' reH batlh jIpabchugh Qapla'meywIj Hoch vIta'ta' 'e' DaHar'a' */Did you think that my word of honor Would have carried me this far?/ Also note that the word /irrealis/ means anything that states something other than actually is. *taHjaj wo'*/long live the Empire!/ is an irrealis, for instance, as it is making a wish for something, not stating something that is. *-jaj* is a suffix which specifically introduces this kind of irrealis. *-chugh* introduces a conditional irrealis. So whenever in English you find yourself saying "would have," just use a normal indicative-mood sentence, but give it enough context to make it clear that you are being hypothetical. *Saleghchugh SaQoypa', Sagho', */orc/ *mach tlhIH 'e' vIHarmo', 'ej jIQaghpu' pIq 'e' vItu'.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
Also note that the word irrealis means anything that states something other than actually is.
yeah, sorry. my bad ! As I always say, grammar terms confuse me. I remember googling "irrealis", and a million types of it came up. The irrealis type I am referring to in this post, is the "would be" type. SuStel:
give it enough context to make it clear that you are being hypothetical.
And here is the key. Being someone who a few months ago, found it hard as hell to write a single klingon sentence, while now finds it easy as pie to write one, I realize that through context one can overcome almost anything. The important thing for someone though, is to free his mind. My problem with irrealis (of the "would be" type) wasn't as much the lack of a specific suffix for it; it was my mind's "obsessive expectation" to see a specific suffix for it. As soon as I let go of that obsessive expectation everything became clear. qunnoH you haven't experienced shakespeare unless you read him in the original klingon On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 5:10 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/3/2016 10:34 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
I remember having discussed here, that klingon doesn't possess the grammar to say "if klingon possessed an irrealis suffix, then I wouldn't be writing this post".
So far so good..
I've been trying to find a way to overcome this problem
While Klingon does not possess any formal irrealis grammar like a subjunctive mood, it can still express irrealis nonetheless.
bIje'be'chugh vaj bIHegh if you do not buy then you will die
Klingon employs no special grammar for the irrealis of you will die, a statement which is not a prediction of definite future events but describes what will happen only if you fail to buy. Even in English no special irrealis is used in the you will die part.
if I possessed foresight, I would have known my dog is stupid
QIp dogwIj 'e' vISov, leSSov vIghajchugh
Without using any special grammar, but employing context, this statement is already an expression of irrealis.
paq'batlh has a couple of examples. Here's one:
jIlay'DI' reH batlh jIpabchugh Qapla'meywIj Hoch vIta'ta' 'e' DaHar'a' Did you think that my word of honor Would have carried me this far?
Also note that the word irrealis means anything that states something other than actually is. taHjaj wo' long live the Empire! is an irrealis, for instance, as it is making a wish for something, not stating something that is. -jaj is a suffix which specifically introduces this kind of irrealis. -chugh introduces a conditional irrealis.
So whenever in English you find yourself saying "would have," just use a normal indicative-mood sentence, but give it enough context to make it clear that you are being hypothetical.
Saleghchugh SaQoypa', Sagho', orc mach tlhIH 'e' vIHarmo', 'ej jIQaghpu' pIq 'e' vItu'.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Am 03.11.2016 um 15:34 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
I remember having discussed here, that klingon doesn't possess the grammar to say "if klingon possessed an irrealis suffix, then I wouldn't be writing this post".
I wanted to wait until after the qepHom, but as you mentioned this topic, here is what Maltz has revealed to us just now: ------begin------ For a statement that's counterfactual (or "irrealis"), a phrase with the verb jal ("imagine, envision") is used: ... net jalchugh ("if one imagines that…", "if it is imagined that…"). For example: tlhIngan SoH net jalchugh, qagh DatIv This is "If you were a Klingon, you would enjoy gagh" or, literally, "If one imagines that you are a Klingon, you would enjoy gagh." The implication is that you are not a Klingon. Compare: qaghwIj DaSopchugh, qaHoH "If you eat my gagh, I'll kill you." qaghwIj DaSop net jalchugh, qaHoH "If you were eating my gagh, I would kill you" (literally: "If one imagines that you are eating my gagh…"). -------end------- -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
oh this is beautiful ! I can't believe I'll say this, but I love maltz ! qatlho' lieven ! DoyIchlanwI' jup 'ej tlhIngan loDnI', qatlho' ! qunnoH jan puqloD On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 03.11.2016 um 15:34 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
I remember having discussed here, that klingon doesn't possess the grammar to say "if klingon possessed an irrealis suffix, then I wouldn't be writing this post".
I wanted to wait until after the qepHom, but as you mentioned this topic, here is what Maltz has revealed to us just now:
------begin------ For a statement that's counterfactual (or "irrealis"), a phrase with the verb jal ("imagine, envision") is used: ... net jalchugh ("if one imagines that…", "if it is imagined that…"). For example:
tlhIngan SoH net jalchugh, qagh DatIv This is "If you were a Klingon, you would enjoy gagh" or, literally, "If one imagines that you are a Klingon, you would enjoy gagh."
The implication is that you are not a Klingon. Compare:
qaghwIj DaSopchugh, qaHoH "If you eat my gagh, I'll kill you." qaghwIj DaSop net jalchugh, qaHoH
"If you were eating my gagh, I would kill you" (literally: "If one imagines that you are eating my gagh…").
-------end-------
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Some language textbooks call this sort of sentence an "unreal condition". We need Okrand/Maltz to reveal a one-syllable or two-syllable particle which means "this is not true, but assume for the moment that it is true" or similar, that could be put in if-clauses and when-ckauses and suchlike, and/or into a clause that governs such a clause. ----Original message----
From : mihkoun@gmail.com Date : 03/11/2016 - 14:34 (GMTST) To : tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject : [tlhIngan Hol] A thought on the irrealis construction I remember having discussed here, that klingon doesn't possess the grammar to say "if klingon possessed an irrealis suffix, then I wouldn't be writing this post". So far so good.. I've been trying to find a way to overcome this problem, and I thought of the following approach: Lets say, I want to write "if I possessed foresight, I would have known my dog is stupid". If I write: {'op ben leSSov vIghajbe', 'ach ngugh vIghajchugh..}....
On Nov 4, 2016 06:47, "Anthony Appleyard" <a.appleyard@btinternet.com> wrote:
Some language textbooks call this sort of sentence an "unreal condition".
We need Okrand/Maltz to reveal a one-syllable or two-syllable particle which means "this is not true, but assume for the moment that it is true" or similar, that could be put in if-clauses and when-ckauses and suchlike, and/or into a clause that governs such a clause. {net jalchugh} Dapar'a'? -- De'vID
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 3:35 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 2016 06:47, "Anthony Appleyard" <a.appleyard@btinternet.com> wrote:
Some language textbooks call this sort of sentence an "unreal
condition". We need Okrand/Maltz to reveal a one-syllable or two-syllable particle which means "this is not true, but assume for the moment that it is true" or similar, that could be put in if-clauses and when-ckauses and suchlike, and/or into a clause that governs such a clause.
{net jalchugh} Dapar'a'?
-- De'vID
vIparHa'qu', De'vID. lI'. chaq mu'meyvam lo' tlhIngan, tuch qeltaHvIS. 'a pa'logh qeltaHvIS, qaSbe'bogh wanI' qelbe'. qellaHbe'law'. ('a ta' Dun lachlaHbej.) This opening scene from DS9 "Soldiers of the Empire" demonstrates how Klingons differ from humans with regard to imagining how things could have happened differently. [Infirmary] (Martok has a shoulder wound.) BASHIR: Another three centimetres to the right and you would've severed the brachial artery. Autosuture, please. And if that had happened, you would have bled to death right there in the holosuite. MARTOK: The human fascination with what might have been is tiresome, doctor. The artery was not severed and I am not dead. ~mIp'av
mIp'av:
'a pa'logh qeltaHvIS, qaSbe'bogh wanI' qelbe'. qellaHbe'law'.
If I understand the klingon sentence correctly (and if I don't, then please correct me) it says: "however, the past while it is considering, it doesn't consider events which didn't happen. seemingly it isn't able to consider them". I think, it is perfectly able to consider events which didn't happen in the past. Check this out: "If I hadn't closed the door yesterday, the cat would have been able to enter the house" the above in klingon: {wa'Hu' lojmIt vISoQmoHta'; vISoQbe'moHta' net jalchugh vaj juH 'ellaH vIghro'}. "yesterday I closed the door; if one imagines I hadn't closed it,then the cat would have been able to enter the house". anyway, if you disagree at anything of the above, I would love to hear your thoughts. qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 6 Nov 2016 7:41 am, "Ed Bailey" <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 3:35 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 2016 06:47, "Anthony Appleyard" <a.appleyard@btinternet.com> wrote:
Some language textbooks call this sort of sentence an "unreal
condition". We need Okrand/Maltz to reveal a one-syllable or two-syllable particle which means "this is not true, but assume for the moment that it is true" or similar, that could be put in if-clauses and when-ckauses and suchlike, and/or into a clause that governs such a clause.
{net jalchugh} Dapar'a'?
-- De'vID
vIparHa'qu', De'vID. lI'. chaq mu'meyvam lo' tlhIngan, tuch qeltaHvIS. 'a pa'logh qeltaHvIS, qaSbe'bogh wanI' qelbe'. qellaHbe'law'. ('a ta' Dun lachlaHbej.)
This opening scene from DS9 "Soldiers of the Empire" demonstrates how Klingons differ from humans with regard to imagining how things could have happened differently.
[Infirmary] (Martok has a shoulder wound.) BASHIR: Another three centimetres to the right and you would've severed the brachial artery. Autosuture, please. And if that had happened, you would have bled to death right there in the holosuite. MARTOK: The human fascination with what might have been is tiresome, doctor. The artery was not severed and I am not dead.
~mIp'av
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
jIjatlh
'a pa'logh qeltaHvIS, qaSbe'bogh wanI' qelbe'. qellaHbe'law'.
jang qunnoq, jatlh
If I understand the klingon sentence correctly (and if I don't, then please correct me) it says: "however, the past while it is considering, it doesn't consider events which didn't happen. seemingly it isn't able to consider them".
I think, it is perfectly able to consider events which didn't happen in the past. Check this out:
"If I hadn't closed the door yesterday, the cat would have been able to enter the house"
the above in klingon:
{wa'Hu' lojmIt vISoQmoHta'; vISoQbe'moHta' net jalchugh vaj juH 'ellaH vIghro'}. "yesterday I closed the door; if one imagines I hadn't closed it,then the cat would have been able to enter the house".
anyway, if you disagree at anything of the above, I would love to hear your thoughts.
I was talking about plural Klingons as I recall, so I should have said pa'logh luqeltaHvIS. I'm pretty sure {tuch} <future> and {pa'logh} <past> are not merely time stamps, so it's perfectly possible to say "They consider the future" or "the past." (For that matter, I think even a time stamp like {wa'leS} might be used in such a way, as in DaHjaj bIHIj 'e' Dalay'! yapbe' wa'leS!) In fact, {pIq} and {ret} are the time stamps you'd use, maybe with {'op} or {Hoch}, to say "in the future" or "in the past." I haven't seen much usage of these new words, {tuch} and {pa'logh}, as in, let me suggest, {pa'loghmo' ghojbe'chugh vay', pa'logh qaSqa'moH 'e' botlaHbe'}. But Klingon does have what might be considered a deficiency by Terrans who are used to using the subjunctive mood, particularly the contrary-to-fact subjunctive. Klingon handles the other subjunctive (I'm not sure what it's called in English, but it's called Konjunktiv I in German), as in "Long live the Queen!" or "Be he live or be he dead," quite well with {-jaj} and {-chugh}. Your example using the wording De'vID suggested does a good job of discussing a formerly possible event which did not occur. Stating that something could happen but didn't might also cover some situations, as in {poStaH lojmIt 'e' bong vIchaw', vaj juH 'ellaHpu' vIghro' 'a not 'el}. But my point is that for Klingons, it's not a deficiency that Klingon doesn't have the sort of grammatical apparatus seen in "If I were rich." Not just because there are workarounds, but also because it's not something they feel the need to say. Based on my knowledge of Star Trek, I have the very strong impression that, unlike humans, Klingons don't give a damn about stuff that doesn't happen. Martok said it as one who discovered this difference between the two species from the other side. ~mIp'av
ok, now I understand your opinion on this subject. If we approach this from a cultural perspective, then I agree, that when it comes to warriors (martok, gowron, etc), then the use of irrealis would be very limited, perhaps maybe even non-existent. As you described -and I agree-, a warrior wouldn't concern himself with alternate possibilities, or what "might have been in the past or future". However, I believe there is an additional side to this matter. We tend to think klingons as being only warriors. And of course, noone would disagree that every klingon regardless of gender and perhaps maybe even age, would definitely be able to fight. But I feel it is almost certain, that there must be scientists too. Someone must have built their birds of prey, right ? So, I think that although the irrealis wouldn't be of much use to a warrior, it surely would be necessary to a scientist, who constantly needs to describe possibilities, theories etc. Of course, since there is a lot we don't know about this warrior race, one can only speculate. However, being terrans who are fascinated by their language, I think the more grammar/linguistic tools we have, the better. I'm happy beyond words, that maltz revealed this construction for us ! I truly feel kahless himself answered my prayers, since many times I wanted to use irrealis but I didn't know how to do it. thank you maltz ! qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 6 Nov 2016 6:19 pm, "Ed Bailey" <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
jIjatlh
'a pa'logh qeltaHvIS, qaSbe'bogh wanI' qelbe'. qellaHbe'law'.
jang qunnoq, jatlh
If I understand the klingon sentence correctly (and if I don't, then please correct me) it says: "however, the past while it is considering, it doesn't consider events which didn't happen. seemingly it isn't able to consider them".
I think, it is perfectly able to consider events which didn't happen in the past. Check this out:
"If I hadn't closed the door yesterday, the cat would have been able to enter the house"
the above in klingon:
{wa'Hu' lojmIt vISoQmoHta'; vISoQbe'moHta' net jalchugh vaj juH 'ellaH vIghro'}. "yesterday I closed the door; if one imagines I hadn't closed it,then the cat would have been able to enter the house".
anyway, if you disagree at anything of the above, I would love to hear your thoughts.
I was talking about plural Klingons as I recall, so I should have said pa'logh luqeltaHvIS.
I'm pretty sure {tuch} <future> and {pa'logh} <past> are not merely time stamps, so it's perfectly possible to say "They consider the future" or "the past." (For that matter, I think even a time stamp like {wa'leS} might be used in such a way, as in DaHjaj bIHIj 'e' Dalay'! yapbe' wa'leS!) In fact, {pIq} and {ret} are the time stamps you'd use, maybe with {'op} or {Hoch}, to say "in the future" or "in the past."
I haven't seen much usage of these new words, {tuch} and {pa'logh}, as in, let me suggest, {pa'loghmo' ghojbe'chugh vay', pa'logh qaSqa'moH 'e' botlaHbe'}.
But Klingon does have what might be considered a deficiency by Terrans who are used to using the subjunctive mood, particularly the contrary-to-fact subjunctive. Klingon handles the other subjunctive (I'm not sure what it's called in English, but it's called Konjunktiv I in German), as in "Long live the Queen!" or "Be he live or be he dead," quite well with {-jaj} and {-chugh}. Your example using the wording De'vID suggested does a good job of discussing a formerly possible event which did not occur. Stating that something could happen but didn't might also cover some situations, as in {poStaH lojmIt 'e' bong vIchaw', vaj juH 'ellaHpu' vIghro' 'a not 'el}.
But my point is that for Klingons, it's not a deficiency that Klingon doesn't have the sort of grammatical apparatus seen in "If I were rich." Not just because there are workarounds, but also because it's not something they feel the need to say. Based on my knowledge of Star Trek, I have the very strong impression that, unlike humans, Klingons don't give a damn about stuff that doesn't happen. Martok said it as one who discovered this difference between the two species from the other side.
~mIp'av
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
{net jalchugh} bop'a' mu'meylIj Qav? 'angpu'chugh matlh, vaj jIjIv. ngoD laj vaj, 'ach qaSbe'bogh wanI'qoq buSHa' SuvwI' neH 'e' DaHarchugh, bImuj. jallaHqu' tlhIngan tej 'ach wanI'qoqmeyvam SaHbe' je 'e' vIHar. toj'egh neHbe' 'ej poH natlh neHbe'. qaSbe'bogh wanI'qoq qelmeH qaSpu'bogh wanI'na' buSHa'nIS, 'a wanI'na' buSHa'qangbe'. meqvammo' loQ wIHnIS. QapmeH loQ wIHnIS tera'ngan tej je, vaj tlhIngan tej rurnIS. wanI'na' wanI'qoq je jojHeyDaq majoqtaHvIS, mapay pagh mabIt'eghmoH 'a DI'ruj wIbambe'. yab Sengvammo' tlhIngan vonbe'lu', vaj nughojmoHlaH tlhIngan. tlhoy jalQo'meH tlhIngan, latlh meq tu'lu', 'a chaq Doghlaw'. qo' jallu'bogh luDab tlhIngan, vaj nuq lujal tlhIngan? qo'Hommey jal'a'? qo'HomHommey jal'a' qo'Homngan? ghorgh Dor mIwvam? 'a jIDachchoH. meqmey law'mo' tlhIngan vIjal 'ej 'e' vItIv. DaH meqmeywIj wa' vIja'. maDogh Human mut 'e' lu'anglaH tlhIngan. wanI' DuHbe' wIjalmeH poH wInatlh 'e' lu'ang tlhIngan. maHvaD neSlo' lumuch tlhIngan. ~mIp'av
mIp'av:
{net jalchugh} bop'a' mu'meylIj Qav? 'angpu'chugh matlh, vaj jIjIv.
Yes, they do. The {net jalchugh}, was revealed by maltz. See earlier in the thread the message from lieven, but in case you missed it, here it is again: ------- lieven message beginning ------- I wanted to wait until after the qepHom, but as you mentioned this topic, here is what Maltz has revealed to us just now: ------begin------ For a statement that's counterfactual (or "irrealis"), a phrase with the verb jal ("imagine, envision") is used: ... net jalchugh ("if one imagines that…", "if it is imagined that…"). For example: tlhIngan SoH net jalchugh, qagh DatIv This is "If you were a Klingon, you would enjoy gagh" or, literally, "If one imagines that you are a Klingon, you would enjoy gagh." The implication is that you are not a Klingon. Compare: qaghwIj DaSopchugh, qaHoH "If you eat my gagh, I'll kill you." qaghwIj DaSop net jalchugh, qaHoH "If you were eating my gagh, I would kill you" (literally: "If one imagines that you are eating my gagh…"). -------end------- ------- lieven message end ------- qunnoH jan puqloD 2016-11-07 6:52 GMT+02:00 Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com>:
{net jalchugh} bop'a' mu'meylIj Qav? 'angpu'chugh matlh, vaj jIjIv.
ngoD laj vaj, 'ach qaSbe'bogh wanI'qoq buSHa' SuvwI' neH 'e' DaHarchugh, bImuj. jallaHqu' tlhIngan tej 'ach wanI'qoqmeyvam SaHbe' je 'e' vIHar. toj'egh neHbe' 'ej poH natlh neHbe'. qaSbe'bogh wanI'qoq qelmeH qaSpu'bogh wanI'na' buSHa'nIS, 'a wanI'na' buSHa'qangbe'. meqvammo' loQ wIHnIS. QapmeH loQ wIHnIS tera'ngan tej je, vaj tlhIngan tej rurnIS. wanI'na' wanI'qoq je jojHeyDaq majoqtaHvIS, mapay pagh mabIt'eghmoH 'a DI'ruj wIbambe'. yab Sengvammo' tlhIngan vonbe'lu', vaj nughojmoHlaH tlhIngan.
tlhoy jalQo'meH tlhIngan, latlh meq tu'lu', 'a chaq Doghlaw'. qo' jallu'bogh luDab tlhIngan, vaj nuq lujal tlhIngan? qo'Hommey jal'a'? qo'HomHommey jal'a' qo'Homngan? ghorgh Dor mIwvam? 'a jIDachchoH.
meqmey law'mo' tlhIngan vIjal 'ej 'e' vItIv. DaH meqmeywIj wa' vIja'. maDogh Human mut 'e' lu'anglaH tlhIngan. wanI' DuHbe' wIjalmeH poH wInatlh 'e' lu'ang tlhIngan. maHvaD neSlo' lumuch tlhIngan.
~mIp'av
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
ja' mIp'av:
I have the very strong impression that, unlike humans, Klingons don't give a damn about stuff that doesn't happen.
Well, maybe Worf is not the best example-Klingon to show, but the first time I struggled with irrealis was when watching Star Trek First contact (1996). Worf said to Picard: "I you were any other man, I would kill you where you stand". I always thought it's not right to say: {latlh loD SoHchugh, vaj DaH qaHoH} AS it does not convey the idea correctly. Actually, I'm pretty happy to be able to say now {latlh loD SoH net jalchugh, vaj qaHoH.}, but I would have preferred it be done with a different kind of suffix. But Okrand told us this weekend, that according to Maltz, we should have received nearly all of the existing suffixes - but there may be more, perhabs. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On 7 November 2016 at 10:21, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Actually, I'm pretty happy to be able to say now {latlh loD SoH net jalchugh, vaj qaHoH.}, but I would have preferred it be done with a different kind of suffix. But Okrand told us this weekend, that according to Maltz, we should have received nearly all of the existing suffixes - but there may be more, perhabs.
It would be very weird, at this point, to get any more (let's say, "modern {ta' Hol}") suffixes, considering the volume of canon we have. What are the chances that a commonplace suffix would fail to appear in important Klingon works such as {paq'batlh} and {Hamlet}? -- De'vID
Am 07.11.2016 um 10:31 schrieb De'vID:
It would be very weird, at this point, to get any more (let's say, "modern {ta' Hol}") suffixes, considering the volume of canon we have. What are the chances that a commonplace suffix would fail to appear in important Klingon works such as {paq'batlh} and {Hamlet}?
Yes, true, but on the other hand - think of how many words were "discovered" after the translation of Hamlet! They didn't even have a word for "sun" :-) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On 7 November 2016 at 10:36, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 07.11.2016 um 10:31 schrieb De'vID:
It would be very weird, at this point, to get any more (let's say, "modern {ta' Hol}") suffixes, considering the volume of canon we have. What are the chances that a commonplace suffix would fail to appear in important Klingon works such as {paq'batlh} and {Hamlet}?
Yes, true, but on the other hand - think of how many words were "discovered" after the translation of Hamlet!
They didn't even have a word for "sun" :-)
SorHa'chu' neH SeQpIr. jul {mu'} Sovba'. In fact, SeQpIr's use of the word "sun" in the name of his famous play {romyo' julyet je} is one of the clearer signs of Federation forgery. The line "Juliet is the sun" is a pun in the original Klingon which is lacking in the inferior Federation reproduction. -- De'vID
On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 10:31:08AM +0100, De'vID wrote:
On 7 November 2016 at 10:21, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Actually, I'm pretty happy to be able to say now {latlh loD SoH net jalchugh, vaj qaHoH.}, but I would have preferred it be done with a different kind of suffix. But Okrand told us this weekend, that according to Maltz, we should have received nearly all of the existing suffixes - but there may be more, perhabs.
It would be very weird, at this point, to get any more (let's say, "modern {ta' Hol}") suffixes, considering the volume of canon we have. What are the chances that a commonplace suffix would fail to appear in important Klingon works such as {paq'batlh} and {Hamlet}?
I was under the impression that {Hamlet} wasn't actually canon — am I wrong about that? At this point, we've seen a number of suffixes that can also be used as independant verbs, which suggests that the boundary between what's a suffix and what's a verb might be a bit blurrier in Klingon than in English. More concretely, I've been wondering if the verb {neH} might be on its way to being grammaticalized (especially since it's already in a special category as the only verb that can take a SAO without {'e'}). Maybe in some progressive dialects it's already there (I'd expect it to be type 2, but that isn't necessarily a given). pItlh -SapIr
I agree this might happen in more progressive dialects or future varieties of Klingon. Hypothetically speaking, of course. Someday we might have forms like {jIQongneHbe'} - and I agree that it would perhaps be slot #2. In some natural languages it happened the same way: In Burmese the former verb <khyang> 'to wish, to desire' has become a grammatical verb suffix /-ʨʰin/ (pronounced [ʨʰɪ̃]) which just means 'want' and is sometimes just called "desiderative marker". Maybe also the suffix {-nIS} used to be a verb with the meaning 'must' in the past? We have no evidence for that. I wonder if some has already written a HolQeD article in the olden days. Of course this is all in-universe speculation about the language history of Klingon. But I find it very interesting too. - André 2016-11-08 12:55 GMT+01:00 kechpaja <kechpaja@comcast.net>:
On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 10:31:08AM +0100, De'vID wrote:
On 7 November 2016 at 10:21, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Actually, I'm pretty happy to be able to say now {latlh loD SoH net jalchugh, vaj qaHoH.}, but I would have preferred it be done with a different kind of suffix. But Okrand told us this weekend, that according to Maltz, we should have received nearly all of the existing suffixes - but there may be more, perhabs.
It would be very weird, at this point, to get any more (let's say, "modern {ta' Hol}") suffixes, considering the volume of canon we have. What are the chances that a commonplace suffix would fail to appear in important Klingon works such as {paq'batlh} and {Hamlet}?
I was under the impression that {Hamlet} wasn't actually canon — am I wrong about that?
At this point, we've seen a number of suffixes that can also be used as independant verbs, which suggests that the boundary between what's a suffix and what's a verb might be a bit blurrier in Klingon than in English. More concretely, I've been wondering if the verb {neH} might be on its way to being grammaticalized (especially since it's already in a special category as the only verb that can take a SAO without {'e'}). Maybe in some progressive dialects it's already there (I'd expect it to be type 2, but that isn't necessarily a given).
pItlh
-SapIr _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
ja' mIp'av:
I have the very strong impression that, unlike humans, Klingons don't give a damn about stuff that doesn't happen.
jang Lieven, jatlh: Well, maybe Worf is not the best example-Klingon to show, but the first time I struggled with irrealis was when watching Star Trek First contact (1996).
Worf said to Picard: "I you were any other man, I would kill you where you stand".
I always thought it's not right to say: {latlh loD SoHchugh, vaj DaH qaHoH} AS it does not convey the idea correctly.
Actually, I'm pretty happy to be able to say now {latlh loD SoH net jalchugh, vaj qaHoH.}, but I would have preferred it be done with a different kind of suffix. But Okrand told us this weekend, that according to Maltz, we should have received nearly all of the existing suffixes - but there may be more, perhabs.
Yes, Worf isn't a typical Klingon. If he were, he would likely have killed Picard, (Also, I forget now which episode of DS9 has Martok gently chiding Worf for trying too hard to be Klingon.) Worf is also speaking DIvI' Hol to Picard, a language in which the counterfactual conditional mood is common and provides an easy formula, a prefab sentence structure ready to be fleshed out with words to fit any situation. If he were speaking Klingon, I suspect that he'd be much less likely to resort to this mood. (Note how often I'm using this mood, and it's for the reason I just pointed out, not because it's unavoidable for conveying my meaning.) I'd expect a Klingon's reaction to this situation to be focused on what actually does happen: wo'rIv nab qaDmeH pIqarD, wo'rIv tIch. QeHqu'choH wo'rIv. vaj pIqarD HoH SIbI' neHchoH wo'rIv. 'a pIqarD vuvqu'mo' wo'rIv, SeH'egh 'ej HoHQo'. QeHDaj polHa'meH wo'rIv, pIqarDvaD ngoDvam ja'. Klingon expressions Worf could use in this context that convey his meaning without reimagining the situation include: nuch muperchugh latlh loD SIbI' vIHoH. mu'lIj jatlhchugh latlh loD SIbI' vIHoH pIqarD HoD SoHmo' neH vIHoHbe'. I'm not chafing at the lack of other verb suffixes, though there are situations in which I'm strongly tempted to stick rovers after Type 9 suffixes, not because I'm too lazy to speak Klingon correctly. ;) ~mIp'av
participants (8)
-
André Müller -
Anthony Appleyard -
De'vID -
Ed Bailey -
kechpaja -
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel