Do we have any canon examples of clauses with verbs taking type-9 suffixes which are then used as the object of another verb? For the purposes of this question, ignore {-bogh}, {-ghach}, and {-wI'}, as those all turn the verb into a noun or make it part of a clause that acts as a noun grammatically. As an example of what I mean, can any of the sentences mean what the accompanying translations say? (I know all of these sentences could be rewritten to avoid using this construction, the point is to illustrate it in use.) {bIpawDI' 'e' lutu'} When you arrive they will notice that you arrive {vIje'chugh 'e' vIpay} If I buy it I will regret buying it {Sulengpa' 'e' bonabnIS} Before you travel you need to plan traveling {mayIttaHvIS 'e' wIbuSbe'} While we are walking we don’t focus on us walking {QapmeH 'e' lunIDnIS} In order for them to succeed they need to attempt to succeed {Saghqu'mo' 'e' mevbe'} Because she is very serious she doesn’t stop being serious I found that verbs with {-'a'} and {-jaj} seemed a bit weirder when acting as SAO, probably because they change the mood: {DalIjpu''a'? 'e' Datlhoj'a'?} Did you forget it? Did you realize that you forgot it? {malopjaj; 'e' wItIvjaj} May we celebrate; may we enjoy celebrating Or is it the case that SAO has to have a verb without a type nine suffix? I won’t do this for all of the above examples, but as an example of a type 9-ed verb coming before an SAO pronoun but not being the actual SAO: {bImob bIpawDI' 'e' lutu'} When you arrive they will notice that you are alone
SAO stands for “Sentence As Object”. Your examples use verbs with Type 9 suffix. These are not sentences. They are dependent clauses; sentence fragments. Most of the time, your translations include self-invented, unstated echoes of the verb, as if it had been stated, but Klingon grammar doesn’t work like that. Your first example, for example, {bIpawDI’ ‘e’ lutu’} supposedly means “When you arrive they will notice that you arrive.” So, where, in the Klingon sentence, is the word you have translated into the second “you arrive”? It’s not in the Klingon. It’s only in the English. Your English translation pretends that it was stated in the Klingon. It wasn’t. Your last example does make sense, though, because {bImob} is a complete sentence, which is represented by {‘e’} in the sentence that follows it: {bIpawDI’ ‘e’ lutu’}. Everything else is grammatically wrong. And don’t try a Question As Object. Just look in the archives. This one has been argued to death over and over. It doesn’t work. Trust me, and please don’t put us through it again. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Nov 30, 2019, at 9:41 PM, Hugh Son puqloD <Hugh@qeylIS.net> wrote:
Do we have any canon examples of clauses with verbs taking type-9 suffixes which are then used as the object of another verb? For the purposes of this question, ignore {-bogh}, {-ghach}, and {-wI'}, as those all turn the verb into a noun or make it part of a clause that acts as a noun grammatically.
As an example of what I mean, can any of the sentences mean what the accompanying translations say? (I know all of these sentences could be rewritten to avoid using this construction, the point is to illustrate it in use.)
{bIpawDI' 'e' lutu'} When you arrive they will notice that you arrive {vIje'chugh 'e' vIpay} If I buy it I will regret buying it {Sulengpa' 'e' bonabnIS} Before you travel you need to plan traveling {mayIttaHvIS 'e' wIbuSbe'} While we are walking we don’t focus on us walking {QapmeH 'e' lunIDnIS} In order for them to succeed they need to attempt to succeed {Saghqu'mo' 'e' mevbe'} Because she is very serious she doesn’t stop being serious
I found that verbs with {-'a'} and {-jaj} seemed a bit weirder when acting as SAO, probably because they change the mood:
{DalIjpu''a'? 'e' Datlhoj'a'?} Did you forget it? Did you realize that you forgot it? {malopjaj; 'e' wItIvjaj} May we celebrate; may we enjoy celebrating
Or is it the case that SAO has to have a verb without a type nine suffix? I won’t do this for all of the above examples, but as an example of a type 9-ed verb coming before an SAO pronoun but not being the actual SAO:
{bImob bIpawDI' 'e' lutu'} When you arrive they will notice that you are alone _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
While I follow your reasoning about “SAO”, unfortunately, oftentimes we see terms created that aren’t all-encompassing, but simply define the typical use cases. For instance, if I said that we can’t use -vaD for IO’s that to not gain a positive outcome from the verb, you’d roll you eyes and tell me I’m wrong; and yet we say that -vaD marks the “beneficiary” of the verb, and the strict definition of a “beneficiary” is someone who benefits (from the Latin beneficiarius — one who enjoys favour). So… yes, we say “sentence as object”, and most of the use cases are sentences; but that doesn’t exclude an expanded definition of the technical use of the term that means something different than it’s apparent meaning. —jevreH Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 30, 2019, at 23:39, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
SAO stands for “Sentence As Object”.
Your examples use verbs with Type 9 suffix. These are not sentences. They are dependent clauses; sentence fragments.
Most of the time, your translations include self-invented, unstated echoes of the verb, as if it had been stated, but Klingon grammar doesn’t work like that.
Your first example, for example, {bIpawDI’ ‘e’ lutu’} supposedly means “When you arrive they will notice that you arrive.” So, where, in the Klingon sentence, is the word you have translated into the second “you arrive”? It’s not in the Klingon. It’s only in the English. Your English translation pretends that it was stated in the Klingon. It wasn’t.
Your last example does make sense, though, because {bImob} is a complete sentence, which is represented by {‘e’} in the sentence that follows it: {bIpawDI’ ‘e’ lutu’}.
Everything else is grammatically wrong.
And don’t try a Question As Object. Just look in the archives. This one has been argued to death over and over. It doesn’t work. Trust me, and please don’t put us through it again.
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Nov 30, 2019, at 9:41 PM, Hugh Son puqloD <Hugh@qeylIS.net> wrote:
Do we have any canon examples of clauses with verbs taking type-9 suffixes which are then used as the object of another verb? For the purposes of this question, ignore {-bogh}, {-ghach}, and {-wI'}, as those all turn the verb into a noun or make it part of a clause that acts as a noun grammatically.
As an example of what I mean, can any of the sentences mean what the accompanying translations say? (I know all of these sentences could be rewritten to avoid using this construction, the point is to illustrate it in use.)
{bIpawDI' 'e' lutu'} When you arrive they will notice that you arrive {vIje'chugh 'e' vIpay} If I buy it I will regret buying it {Sulengpa' 'e' bonabnIS} Before you travel you need to plan traveling {mayIttaHvIS 'e' wIbuSbe'} While we are walking we don’t focus on us walking {QapmeH 'e' lunIDnIS} In order for them to succeed they need to attempt to succeed {Saghqu'mo' 'e' mevbe'} Because she is very serious she doesn’t stop being serious
I found that verbs with {-'a'} and {-jaj} seemed a bit weirder when acting as SAO, probably because they change the mood:
{DalIjpu''a'? 'e' Datlhoj'a'?} Did you forget it? Did you realize that you forgot it? {malopjaj; 'e' wItIvjaj} May we celebrate; may we enjoy celebrating
Or is it the case that SAO has to have a verb without a type nine suffix? I won’t do this for all of the above examples, but as an example of a type 9-ed verb coming before an SAO pronoun but not being the actual SAO:
{bImob bIpawDI' 'e' lutu'} When you arrive they will notice that you are alone _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Nov 30, 2019, at 22:40, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote: SAO stands for “Sentence As Object”.
Your examples use verbs with Type 9 suffix. These are not sentences. They are dependent clauses; sentence fragments.
Right, TKD describes the SAO pronouns as taking sentences as objects, and gives several examples where the pronoun replaces a whole sentence. And of course type 9-ed verbs (discounting {-'a'} and {-jaj}) don’t form full sentences on their own. That’s the whole point of the question. I somewhat doubt it’s possible, but I became curious about it because I used this construction by accident in a sentence {bIvemDI' 'e' Sovchu'} in a submission to the issue of 'eSrIv that should be landing shortly, realizing much later that the sentence is almost certainly ungrammatical. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so I’m keeping an open mind.
Most of the time, your translations include self-invented, unstated echoes of the verb, as if it had been stated, but Klingon grammar doesn’t work like that.
We don’t *know* Klingon grammar to work like that. I don’t know of any examples where {'e'} or {net} take a floating dependent clause as an object, but that could just be because it hasn’t happened. There could be a canon example out there that does use this construction, although I doubt it. The weirdest canon usage of an SAO pronoun that I know of is 'a'Setbur’s line {'e' neHbe' vavoy} from TUC. It’s remarkable because: * {'e'} is used as the object of {neH}, which typically doesn’t happen. In this case, that’s probably because: * {'e'} refers to a sentence that *somebody else* spoke. That sentence was: * {QamvIS Hegh qaq law' torvIS yIn qaq puS} Ignoring the oddity of {-vIS} being used without {-taH}, in direct defiance of the grammar described in TKD, {'e'} here seems to be replacing a comparative sentence, at least according to the rules laid out in TKD. But that doesn’t seem to be the whole story. If it were as simple as “{'e'} … refer[s] to the previous sentence as a whole”, then she’s saying that {ghorqan Qang} didn’t want a death while standing to be preferable to a life while kneeling, which doesn’t really make sense. From context, it seems that {'e'} here is really referring to just the {QamvIS Hegh} part, which isn’t a full sentence. So even if we don’t have a canonical instance of something like {bIpawDI' 'e' lutu'}, it does seem that what’s written in TKD isn’t the end of the story when it comes to SAO pronouns. I could easily imagine a conversation where somebody interrupts another speaker who has started a sentence and uses {'e'} to replace the spoken part of the interrupted sentence, e.g.: - manIDchugh… - 'e' vIneHbe'! Even if the first speaker were allowed to finish the sentence, I could see situations where the {'e'} doesn’t refer to the grammatically independent clause: - manIDchugh, maQapbej! - 'e' vIneHbe'! Sure, grammatically, speaker two should have said something like {manID vIneHbe'}, but if we assume that {'e'} can be the object of {neH} when referring to a sentence somebody else has spoken, then does speaker two really not want to succeed?
I’m feeling deja vu all over again. I think we’ve been here before. Basically, you are inventing grammar and wondering whether or not it would work. Knock yourself out. I don’t have a dog in this fight. I think it’s gibberish, but if you find people who think it’s worth doing, enjoy creating your own dialect. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Dec 1, 2019, at 1:24 PM, Hugh Son puqloD <Hugh@qeylIS.net> wrote:
On Nov 30, 2019, at 22:40, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote: SAO stands for “Sentence As Object”.
Your examples use verbs with Type 9 suffix. These are not sentences. They are dependent clauses; sentence fragments.
Right, TKD describes the SAO pronouns as taking sentences as objects, and gives several examples where the pronoun replaces a whole sentence. And of course type 9-ed verbs (discounting {-'a'} and {-jaj}) don’t form full sentences on their own. That’s the whole point of the question. I somewhat doubt it’s possible, but I became curious about it because I used this construction by accident in a sentence {bIvemDI' 'e' Sovchu'} in a submission to the issue of 'eSrIv that should be landing shortly, realizing much later that the sentence is almost certainly ungrammatical. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so I’m keeping an open mind.
Most of the time, your translations include self-invented, unstated echoes of the verb, as if it had been stated, but Klingon grammar doesn’t work like that.
We don’t *know* Klingon grammar to work like that. I don’t know of any examples where {'e'} or {net} take a floating dependent clause as an object, but that could just be because it hasn’t happened. There could be a canon example out there that does use this construction, although I doubt it.
The weirdest canon usage of an SAO pronoun that I know of is 'a'Setbur’s line {'e' neHbe' vavoy} from TUC. It’s remarkable because:
* {'e'} is used as the object of {neH}, which typically doesn’t happen. In this case, that’s probably because: * {'e'} refers to a sentence that *somebody else* spoke. That sentence was: * {QamvIS Hegh qaq law' torvIS yIn qaq puS}
Ignoring the oddity of {-vIS} being used without {-taH}, in direct defiance of the grammar described in TKD, {'e'} here seems to be replacing a comparative sentence, at least according to the rules laid out in TKD. But that doesn’t seem to be the whole story. If it were as simple as “{'e'} … refer[s] to the previous sentence as a whole”, then she’s saying that {ghorqan Qang} didn’t want a death while standing to be preferable to a life while kneeling, which doesn’t really make sense. From context, it seems that {'e'} here is really referring to just the {QamvIS Hegh} part, which isn’t a full sentence. So even if we don’t have a canonical instance of something like {bIpawDI' 'e' lutu'}, it does seem that what’s written in TKD isn’t the end of the story when it comes to SAO pronouns.
I could easily imagine a conversation where somebody interrupts another speaker who has started a sentence and uses {'e'} to replace the spoken part of the interrupted sentence, e.g.:
- manIDchugh… - 'e' vIneHbe'!
Even if the first speaker were allowed to finish the sentence, I could see situations where the {'e'} doesn’t refer to the grammatically independent clause:
- manIDchugh, maQapbej! - 'e' vIneHbe'!
Sure, grammatically, speaker two should have said something like {manID vIneHbe'}, but if we assume that {'e'} can be the object of {neH} when referring to a sentence somebody else has spoken, then does speaker two really not want to succeed? _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Dec 1, 2019, at 16:59, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
I’m feeling deja vu all over again.
I think we’ve been here before.
Basically, you are inventing grammar and wondering whether or not it would work.
The weirdest canon usage of an SAO pronoun that I know of is 'a'Setbur’s line {'e' neHbe' vavoy} from TUC. It’s remarkable because:
…
From context, it seems that {'e'} here is really referring to just the {QamvIS Hegh} part, which isn’t a full sentence. So even if we don’t have a canonical instance of something like {bIpawDI' 'e' lutu'}, it does seem that what’s written in TKD isn’t the end of the story when it comes to SAO pronouns.
Not inventing grammar though, based on the example Hugh gave (from canon). I get the sense that Hugh is trying to derive further understanding of the language based on the inductive reasoning process. I’m unsure why you feel this is so problematic. There’s a difference between “we should do this thing that isn’t supported” and “this seems to make sense, is it supported”. Rather than being dismissive, why not try offering an alternate explanation for the grammatical nature of the TUC example provided? He went to the trouble of finding an example that seemed to support his position and you couldn’t even be bothered to address it. I’ve wondered the same thing about how ‘e’ might actually be used; and many of the potential cases that Hugh conjectures seem like logical applications. I find the TUC example interesting as well, and it makes me think I need to rewatch that movie. —jevreH
On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 at 03:42, Hugh Son puqloD <Hugh@qeylis.net> wrote:
Do we have any canon examples of clauses with verbs taking type-9 suffixes which are then used as the object of another verb? For the purposes of this question, ignore {-bogh}, {-ghach}, and {-wI'}, as those all turn the verb into a noun or make it part of a clause that acts as a noun grammatically.
I couldn't find any. I suspect there isn't one because the construction is not grammatical.
As an example of what I mean, can any of the sentences mean what the accompanying translations say? (I know all of these sentences could be rewritten to avoid using this construction, the point is to illustrate it in use.)
The way I read these is that I expect the {'e'} to refer back to a previous sentence, which isn't there.
{bIpawDI' 'e' lutu'} When you arrive they will notice that you arrive
For example: {mIv DatuQtaH, bIpawDI' 'e' lutu'} "when you arrive, they will notice it [that you're wearing a helmet]" And even that's slightly weird, and I would've expected this arrangement instead. {bIpawDI', mIv DatuQtaH 'e' lutu'} However, the first sentence could happen in speaking if someone says "You're wearing a helmet", and mid-sentence, the thought occurs to them that "Oh, no, when you arrive they'll notice it".
{vIje'chugh 'e' vIpay} If I buy it I will regret buying it {Sulengpa' 'e' bonabnIS} Before you travel you need to plan traveling {mayIttaHvIS 'e' wIbuSbe'} While we are walking we don’t focus on us walking
Another possibility is that the {'e'} refers to a previous unstated sentence. Two warriors are out for a walk on the evening before a battle. Young warrior: {wa'leS may'Daq wIjaH!} Old warrior: {mayIttaHvIS, 'e' wIbuSbe'.}
{QapmeH 'e' lunIDnIS} In order for them to succeed they need to attempt to succeed {Saghqu'mo' 'e' mevbe'} Because she is very serious she doesn’t stop being serious
I can't help but read all of the {'e'}s as referring to something which isn't there. I found that verbs with {-'a'} and {-jaj} seemed a bit weirder when acting
as SAO, probably because they change the mood:
{DalIjpu''a'? 'e' Datlhoj'a'?} Did you forget it? Did you realize that you forgot it?
Putting {-'a'} on both makes it harder to understand, but I think this is equivalent to trying to use a question as if it were a relative pronoun. {DalIjpu'a'? 'e' Datlhoj} *"You realise that you forget or don't forget it?" or maybe *"You realise whether or not you forget it, yes or not?"
{malopjaj; 'e' wItIvjaj} May we celebrate; may we enjoy celebrating
{malopjaj 'e' wItIv} *"We enjoy that may we celebrate" Whether or not these are technically grammatical sentences, I don't think they make sense. Or is it the case that SAO has to have a verb without a type nine suffix? I
won’t do this for all of the above examples, but as an example of a type 9-ed verb coming before an SAO pronoun but not being the actual SAO:
{bImob bIpawDI' 'e' lutu'} When you arrive they will notice that you are alone
I wrote my own completion of your sentence above before reading this example, but yes, I think this is necessary because without such a verb, you only have a clause, and not a full sentence. -- De'vID
participants (5)
-
De'vID -
Hugh Son puqloD -
jevreH -
jevreh＠qeylis.net
-
Will Martin