This opens up the long argued topic of whether Relative Clauses in Klingon are used to identify an individual, like “The wind that shakes the barley”, which identifies a specific wind, vs. “The wind, which shakes the barley”, which speaks about the wind in general and lets you know parenthetically that wind shakes barley, among other activities. English gives you mechanisms to identify the difference. The Relative Pronoun “that” is used without the Relative Clause being offset with commas when the clause identifies an individual, and the Relative Pronoun “which” is used, with the Relative Clause bounded by commas for a parenthetical comment about the Head Noun. Klingon doesn’t give us any mechanism for which type of Relative Clause is intended, and we argue over canon, trying to figure out if it’s just one or the other, or both with no way of knowing which any given instance is intended. Maybe this has been resolved? I don’t remember. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)

On Apr 29, 2022, at 9:22 AM, Iikka Hauhio <fergusq@protonmail.com> wrote:

I believe that wa'DIch can be used as a noun. However, I'm not sure it means what you think it means in maghwI' ghaH Haw'bogh wa'DIch'e'. I think it means more like "The first is a traitor, and also flees.", ie. that it's not talking about the first to flee, just about a first, and that first flees.

Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio

------- Original Message ------- On Friday, April 29th, 2022 at 16.10, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

...

On 4/29/2022 8:03 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:

...

Suppose I write:

maghwI' ghaH Haw'bogh wa'DIch'e' the first who flees is a traitor

Would it be correct? Here is the evidence in favor:

1. TKD flat out tells us "Numbers are used as nouns." Ordinals are numbers. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suppose that ordinals can be used as nouns.

2. The word cha'DIch is used as a noun to refer to one's "second" during legal proceedings when the accused is not allowed personal combat.

3. paq'batlh uses cha'DIch as well as the other ordinals from wa'DIch through vaghDIch as adverbials, so it is canonically known that the ordinals can act in ways other than just modifying nouns.

Given these, I have no qualms about using wa'DIch or any ordinal as a noun the way you have.

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>

---

tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

On 4/29/2022 12:10 PM, D qunen'oS wrote:

I have no idea what you (charghwI' and fergusq) are talking about.

The only thing I understand from the {Haw'bogh wa'DIch} is "the first who flees". Everything else seems Greek to me.

(As ridiculous it may be for me to use this phrase..)

"The first who flees" could mean different things: "The first to flee." Multiple people flee, and you're talking about the first one of those. "The first (who happens to flee)." There are multiple people, and you're talking about the first one, and this first one happens to be fleeing. Nothing is said about the others fleeing. Whether this is ambiguous or not in Klingon is unclear. You can avoid the ambiguity like this: Haw'chugh ghotpu', maghwI' ghaH wa'DIch'e'. Haw'chugh ghotpu', numaghpu' wa'DIch. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 4/29/2022 1:41 PM, Will Martin wrote:

Then again, the more direct message is {Haw’ maghwI’ neH.}

But it doesn't mean the same thing. In Qa'yIn's sentence, multiple people may flee, but only the first is named a traitor. In your sentence, everyone who flees is named a traitor. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 4/29/2022 1:59 PM, Will Martin wrote:

I get that, but to yell at a crowd “The first to flee is a traitor!” leaves open the opportunity for one guy to take the hit for the others and then everybody is right behind him because, hey, you didn’t say anything about the second person to flee.

Say it my way and the clearer message is that we’re all in this mess together, and only a traitor would abandon those who stand and fight. All who flee are traitors.

You don't know the context in which this is said. It's likely that if one flees, the lines will break and all will flee. In that case, you want to punish the one who broke the line, not the entire line. Who said this is the speech of someone yelling at a crowd? Maybe it's the generals consulting before a battle. Maybe there is a known saboteur, whose job is discovered to be throwing the troops into chaos and causing them to flee, and the speaker is saying how the saboteur may be identified. There are all sorts of reasons why one might want to identify the first one to flee as a traitor rather than everyone who flees. I'm not imposing my singular imaginary context onto it. I'm just trying to address the questions about the grammar. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

numagh Haw’wI’ wa’DIch! pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)

On Apr 29, 2022, at 2:01 PM, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

SuStel:

...

"The first who flees" could mean different things: "The first to flee." Multiple people flee, and you're talking about the first one of those. "The first (who happens to flee)." There are multiple people, and you're talking about the first one, and this first one happens to be fleeing. Nothing is said about the others fleeing.

Interesting. I hadn't ever noticed this ambiguity.

And in fact, thinking now of this matter, I realize that the same can happen in Greek too. But rarely is any ambiguity actually noticed because context clarifies the intended meaning.

-- 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