There's the Ca'Non: Qu' buSHa'chugh SuvwI', batlhHa' vangchugh, qoj matlhHa'chugh, pagh ghaH SuvwI''e' If a warrior ignores duty, acts dishonorably, or is disloyal, he is nothing Now suppose I write: HoSbogh Suvqangbogh 'ej matlhbogh vay' someone who is strong willing to fight and loyal Quchbogh Do'bogh vay' 'ej quvmoHlu'bogh. someone who is happy, fortunate and honored According to the Ca'Non sentence, I think that the above are correct, since the Ca'Non sentence shows that only one {'ej} is necessary. But am I right? Are the above indeed correct? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 6/9/2022 8:00 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:
There's the Ca'Non:
Qu' buSHa'chugh SuvwI', batlhHa' vangchugh, qoj matlhHa'chugh, pagh ghaH SuvwI''e'
If a warrior ignores duty, acts dishonorably, or is disloyal, he is nothing
Now suppose I write:
HoSbogh Suvqangbogh 'ej matlhbogh vay' someone who is strong willing to fight and loyal
Quchbogh Do'bogh vay' 'ej quvmoHlu'bogh. someone who is happy, fortunate and honored
According to the Ca'Non sentence, I think that the above are correct, since the Ca'Non sentence shows that only one {'ej} is necessary.
But am I right? Are the above indeed correct?
*HoSbogh vay', Suvqangbogh, 'ej matlhbogh */someone who is strong, willing to fight, and loyal/ ** The second one doesn't work like this because *vay'* is the subject of *Quchbogh* and *Do'bogh* but not of *quvmoHlu'bogh.* You have to split this into multiple phrases. *Quchbogh vay' 'ej Do'bogh vIlegh. ghaH quvmoHlu' je. */I see someone who is happy and fortunate. He/she is also honored./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
jIH:
HoSbogh Suvqangbogh 'ej matlhbogh vay' SuStel: HoSbogh vay', Suvqangbogh, 'ej matlhbogh someone who is strong, willing to fight, and loyal
The reason you placed the {vay'} after the {HoSbogh} (instead of placing it at the end) is for added clarity, or is it wrong to place it at the end? jIH:
Quchbogh Do'bogh vay' 'ej quvmoHlu'bogh SuStel: The second one doesn't work like this because vay' is the subject of Quchbogh and Do'bogh but not of quvmoHlu'bogh. You have to split this into multiple phrases. Quchbogh vay' 'ej Do'bogh vIlegh. ghaH quvmoHlu' je. I see someone who is happy and fortunate. He/she is also honored.
I'm afraid I don't understand this. {Quchbogh Do'bogh vay' 'ej quvmoHlu'bogh} Can't this be understood as "someone who is happy, who is fortunate, and (he) is honored"? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 6/9/2022 9:12 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:
jIH:
HoSbogh Suvqangbogh 'ej matlhbogh vay' SuStel: HoSbogh vay', Suvqangbogh, 'ej matlhbogh someone who is strong, willing to fight, and loyal
The reason you placed the {vay'} after the {HoSbogh} (instead of placing it at the end) is for added clarity, or is it wrong to place it at the end?
I'm not sure why everyone has such trouble understanding how this works. I think it's because they don't quite realize that when they use a verb apparently without a subject or object, that verb still has a subject and possibly an object, but they've been elided. Let's go back to TKD. "In its fullest form, a Klingon sentence repeats the noun." The example is *yaS legh puq 'ej yaS qIp puq.* Okay. Here comes the key part, to which I will add my own emphasis: "It is possible, however, to use pronouns rather than nouns /*in the second of the joined sentences.*/" A pronoun wants an antecedent. Not a postcedent. A pronoun wants to refer back to a noun that has already been stated. So TKD gives us the example *yaS legh puq 'ej ghaH qIp ghaH.* The *ghaH*'s refer to the previous object and subject, and what's more, the object pronoun refers to the previous object noun and the subject pronoun refers to the previous subject noun. This sentence implies that the child hits the officer, not that the officer hits the child. Then we're told that "if the context is clear, even the pronoun may be left out." TKD's example doesn't follow directly on with the child hitting the officer example, so let's look at what that would be: *yaS legh puq 'ej qIp.* This still implies that the child hits the officer, not that the officer hits the child. Without an explicit reference, we have no reason to believe that object and subject have changed from the first part. So how come we don't say *yaS legh 'ej qIp puq?* What's the subject of *legh?* It's an elided *ghaH.* But why would you put the pronoun /before/ its antecedent? That would be like saying, in English, /She sees the officer and the child hits him./ Or perhaps to mirror the effect in English better we could switch the use of pronouns: /The officer sees her and he hits the child./ Why oh why would you ever want to do this? I mean, I get it: you're thinking of *legh 'ej qIp* as a kind of compound verb. Kind of like /The child [sees and hits] the officer./ And we have a couple of canonical examples of doing things like that. But it's not anywhere near the norm. The norm is to put any subject or object on the first verb you can, then switch to pronouns and possibly elide those pronouns on subsequent verbs that continue to use the same subject and object. So no, I didn't put the *vay'* after the first verb for added clarity or because it is wrong to put it at the end. I put it after the first verb because that is the most normal thing to do. To put *vay'* at the end is to ask your audience to wonder who's doing all these things until you finally get around to naming your subject many words later.
jIH:
Quchbogh Do'bogh vay' 'ej quvmoHlu'bogh SuStel: The second one doesn't work like this because vay' is the subject of Quchbogh and Do'bogh but not of quvmoHlu'bogh. You have to split this into multiple phrases. Quchbogh vay' 'ej Do'bogh vIlegh. ghaH quvmoHlu' je. I see someone who is happy and fortunate. He/she is also honored.
I'm afraid I don't understand this.
{Quchbogh Do'bogh vay' 'ej quvmoHlu'bogh}
Can't this be understood as "someone who is happy, who is fortunate, and (he) is honored"?
*vay'* has been the subject all along. Now you're asking someone to realize that what was the subject for the previous two verbs has become the object of the last verb, even though you don't actually /say/ the word. It is, again, not actually ungrammatical, but it is not the normal way of doing things. Pronouns referring to antecedents playing a specific role don't just change roles without you noting this somehow. If you want to make a word change its role, the least courtesy you can show it is to restate it. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
you're thinking of legh 'ej qIp as a kind of compound verb. Kind of like The child [sees and hits] the officer.
Yes, exactly! This is what I was misunderstanding, and the source of my confusion. Thank you for taking the time to explain all this. I understand everything you wrote. Everything is crystal clear. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
I like SuStel’s response and wholly agree. I want to add two things: You are using canon that uses {-chugh}, a dependent clause that generally goes before or after the main clause, as if it proves a point on {-bogh}. I disagree. {-chugh} creates a dependent clause that precedes or follows a main clause. You parse these clauses serially. By it’s nature, a Relative Clause is nested in a main clause. It’s one thing to parse a series of serial clauses. Its perhaps a bit more challenging to parse a series of clauses nested in another clause. You presented a whole sentence including a series of {-chugh} clauses at the beginning, followed by the main clause, all from canon, and then presented your own suggestion as three {-bogh} clauses with no main clause, just presuming that you can come up with a meaningful verdict on whether or not this works, and if the verdict is that it works, then you can just drop this into any main clause with a linking Head Noun, even if that Head Noun is the subject of two of the Relative Clauses and the object of the remaining one. Even if it didn’t violate any grammar, to quote Sigourney Weaver from Galaxy Quest: “This scene was badly written!” Why are you so determined to write impenetrable Klingon text? Why do you want to be the author of the verbal equivalent of “the Chompers”, filled with wholly unnecessary dangers? What is so abhorrent about clearly written text involving multiple sentences? pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Jun 9, 2022, at 8:00 AM, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
There's the Ca'Non:
Qu' buSHa'chugh SuvwI', batlhHa' vangchugh, qoj matlhHa'chugh, pagh ghaH SuvwI''e'
If a warrior ignores duty, acts dishonorably, or is disloyal, he is nothing
Now suppose I write:
HoSbogh Suvqangbogh 'ej matlhbogh vay' someone who is strong willing to fight and loyal
Quchbogh Do'bogh vay' 'ej quvmoHlu'bogh. someone who is happy, fortunate and honored
According to the Ca'Non sentence, I think that the above are correct, since the Ca'Non sentence shows that only one {'ej} is necessary.
But am I right? Are the above indeed correct?
-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ <https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/> Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
All of a sudden something came to my mind. SuStel:
Let's go back to TKD. "In its fullest form, a Klingon sentence repeats the noun." The example is yaS legh puq 'ej yaS qIp puq.Okay. Here comes the key part, to which I will add my own emphasis: "It is possible, however, to use pronouns rather than nouns in the second of the joined sentences." A pronoun wants an antecedent. Not a postcedent. A pronoun wants to refer back to a noun that has already been stated. So TKD gives us the example yaS legh puq 'ej ghaH qIp ghaH. The ghaH's refer to the previous object and subject, and what's more, the object pronoun refers to the previous object noun and the subject pronoun refers to the previous subject noun.
After reading your explanation, I understand what 'oqranD tries to say in TKD. So far so good. But doesn't 'oqranD contradict himself with the {romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'}? According to TKD shouldn't it be {romuluSngan Sambogh nejwI' 'ej HoHbogh}? Or are we to understand it as an exception/special case? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 at 14:07, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
All of a sudden something came to my mind.
SuStel:
Let's go back to TKD. "In its fullest form, a Klingon sentence repeats the noun." The example is yaS legh puq 'ej yaS qIp puq.Okay. Here comes the key part, to which I will add my own emphasis: "It is possible, however, to use pronouns rather than nouns in the second of the joined sentences." A pronoun wants an antecedent. Not a postcedent. A pronoun wants to refer back to a noun that has already been stated. So TKD gives us the example yaS legh puq 'ej ghaH qIp ghaH. The ghaH's refer to the previous object and subject, and what's more, the object pronoun refers to the previous object noun and the subject pronoun refers to the previous subject noun.
After reading your explanation, I understand what 'oqranD tries to say in TKD. So far so good. But doesn't 'oqranD contradict himself with the {romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'}? According to TKD shouldn't it be {romuluSngan Sambogh nejwI' 'ej HoHbogh}? Or are we to understand it as an exception/special case?
SuStel alluded to constructions like this earlier:
I mean, I get it: you're thinking of *legh 'ej qIp* as a kind of compound verb. Kind of like *The child [sees and hits] the officer.* And we have a couple of canonical examples of doing things like that.
Here, the Klingon is mirroring the English "hunter-killer probe", as though "hunt-and-kill" were one verb. -- De'vID
De'vID:
SuStel alluded to constructions like this earlier:
I mean, I get it: you're thinking of legh 'ej qIp as a kind of compound verb. Kind of like The child [sees and hits] the officer. And we have a couple of canonical examples of doing things like that. Here, the Klingon is mirroring the English "hunter-killer probe", as though "hunt-and-kill" were one verb.
Ok, now I understand. Thanks. So, the thing I understand from this thread is that in a string of {-bogh}s, the noun should be added after the first {-bogh}. I'll regard the {romuluSngan Sambogh and HoHbogh nejwI'} a special-because-matlh-said-so case. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 6/10/2022 10:43 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:
So, the thing I understand from this thread is that in a string of {-bogh}s, the noun should be added after the first {-bogh}.
The thing you should understand from this thread is that in a series of verbs with a common object or subject, if the object or subject is repeated it's usually the second and later ones that are dropped, not the first one. It doesn't matter whether the verbs have *-bogh* or *-chugh* or *-DI'* or nothing at all (independent clauses). They're all treated the same. This is almost universally true. Verbs with subordinate clause markers on them are just like verbs without subordinate clause markers, except their role is subordinated to another verb.
I'll regard the {romuluSngan Sambogh and HoHbogh nejwI'} a special-because-matlh-said-so case.
You should regard it as an illustration that this isn't an exact formula to follow strictly, that there are times when it makes sense to deviate from the norm. In this case, the deviation probably occurs because the author is trying to make /finding/ and /killing/ closely tied together. It's not that the probe happens to find and happens to kill and does these things separately. Its function is finding-and-killing all in one. You wouldn't say *Sambogh 'ej romuluSngan HoHbogh nejwI',* would you? Of course not. Ask yourself why not. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
You wouldn't say Sambogh 'ej romuluSngan HoHbogh nejwI', would you? Of course not. Ask yourself why not.
(If I understand this matter correctly), I wouldn't say {Sambogh 'ej romuluSngan HoHbogh nejwI'} for the following reasons: 1. Reading it from left to right it isn't immediately clear who is being located and by who. 2. (After reading this thread) I'd understand it as "he/they who is/are located by him/them, and by a probe who kills Romulans". 3. There's no already stated noun which is then being replaced by a pronoun (if that's how we call words like "he, she, they, etc). -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
I think the REAL mystery here is why he didn’t call it {romuluSngan SammeH ‘ej HoHmeH nejwI’}. Hunting and killing is the purpose of the device, not merely a description of its behavior. Then the model of its word order would have been even clearer. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Jun 10, 2022, at 11:31 AM, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SuStel:
You wouldn't say Sambogh 'ej romuluSngan HoHbogh nejwI', would you? Of course not. Ask yourself why not.
(If I understand this matter correctly), I wouldn't say {Sambogh 'ej romuluSngan HoHbogh nejwI'} for the following reasons:
1. Reading it from left to right it isn't immediately clear who is being located and by who.
2. (After reading this thread) I'd understand it as "he/they who is/are located by him/them, and by a probe who kills Romulans".
3. There's no already stated noun which is then being replaced by a pronoun (if that's how we call words like "he, she, they, etc).
-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ <https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/> Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Better yet: romuluSngan HoHmeH Sambogh nejwI’ A Romulan probe which hunts in order to kill. I know that will be shredded. It’s entirely wrong. But it’s beautiful... pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Jun 10, 2022, at 12:41 PM, Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com> wrote:
I think the REAL mystery here is why he didn’t call it {romuluSngan SammeH ‘ej HoHmeH nejwI’}. Hunting and killing is the purpose of the device, not merely a description of its behavior. Then the model of its word order would have been even clearer.
pItlh
charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Jun 10, 2022, at 11:31 AM, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote:
SuStel:
You wouldn't say Sambogh 'ej romuluSngan HoHbogh nejwI', would you? Of course not. Ask yourself why not.
(If I understand this matter correctly), I wouldn't say {Sambogh 'ej romuluSngan HoHbogh nejwI'} for the following reasons:
1. Reading it from left to right it isn't immediately clear who is being located and by who.
2. (After reading this thread) I'd understand it as "he/they who is/are located by him/them, and by a probe who kills Romulans".
3. There's no already stated noun which is then being replaced by a pronoun (if that's how we call words like "he, she, they, etc).
-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ <https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/> Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
SuStel:
The norm is to put any subject or object on the first verb you can, then switch to pronouns and possibly elide those pronouns on subsequent verbs that continue to use the same subject and object.
As soon as this thread was finished, I started following your advice, and yes you're right, it made much more sense placing the subject (or object) on the first verb that I could. Until recently, I needed to write something like "the chancellor helps people who train and are willing to fight". So I wrote: qeqbogh nuvpu' 'ej Suvqangbogh QaH Qang I understand the reasons why the {nuvpu'} needs to be placed right after the {qeqbogh}, but it seems "strange" to see the {nuvpu'} -which is the object of {QaH} too- so far away from it. Doesn't it seem strange to you too? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 7/18/2022 7:46 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:
qeqbogh nuvpu' 'ej Suvqangbogh QaH Qang
I understand the reasons why the {nuvpu'} needs to be placed right after the {qeqbogh}, but it seems "strange" to see the {nuvpu'} -which is the object of {QaH} too- so far away from it. Doesn't it seem strange to you too?
No. The object of *QaH* isn't *nuvpu',* it's *qeqbogh nuvpu' 'ej Suvqangbogh.* That's a noun phrase. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (4)
-
D qunen'oS -
De'vID -
SuStel -
Will Martin