to continue on something which I asked yesterday.. we said that we can't have {'Iv} and {nuq} as part of noun-noun constructions. but can we have the {ghorgh} and {nuqDaq} existing next to nouns ? for example can we say: {ghorgh DaSjaj mamej} when do we depart on monday ? {DaSjaj ghorgh mamej} on monday when do we depart {nuqDaq tera'Daq mIl'oDmey tu'lu'} where on earth someone finds bears ? {tera'Daq nuqDaq mIl'oDmey tu'lu'} on earth where someone finds bears ? qunnoH jan puqloD
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 6:24 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
to continue on something which I asked yesterday..
we said that we can't have {'Iv} and {nuq} as part of noun-noun
We can't? I thought {nuq} and {'Iv} just go into whatever noun spot contains the missing information. Where is the rule that they can't be part of a noun-noun construction, I must have missed it? I would have expected the following to be grammatical: {tIn 'Iv Duj} - Who's ship is big? {Hab SoSwI' nuq} - My mother's what is smooth?
constructions. but can we have the {ghorgh} and {nuqDaq} existing next to nouns ?
for example can we say:
{ghorgh DaSjaj mamej} when do we depart on monday ?
{DaSjaj ghorgh mamej} on monday when do we depart
I would put {ghorgh} first (same with {chay'} and {qatlh}), so the listener knows right away that it's a question, although as with a lot of the chuvmey, they just "occur at the beginning of the sentence", and the specific order is down to personal preference most of the time.
{nuqDaq tera'Daq mIl'oDmey tu'lu'} where on earth someone finds bears ?
{tera'Daq nuqDaq mIl'oDmey tu'lu'} on earth where someone finds bears ?
Since {nuqDaq} is a locative phrase just like {tera'Daq}, they can go either way around, although I'd put it in the spot where's I'd expect the answer to be: tera'Daq nuqDaq mIl'oDmey tu'lu'? tera'Daq HuDaq mIl'oDmey tu'lu'. qurgh
qurgh:
Where is the rule that they can't be part of a noun-noun construction, I must have missed it?
SuStel wrote this a few days ago, at the "who shall call them from the twilight ?" thread. qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 16 Dec 2016 2:21 pm, "qurgh lungqIj" <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 6:24 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
to continue on something which I asked yesterday..
we said that we can't have {'Iv} and {nuq} as part of noun-noun
We can't? I thought {nuq} and {'Iv} just go into whatever noun spot contains the missing information. Where is the rule that they can't be part of a noun-noun construction, I must have missed it?
I would have expected the following to be grammatical:
{tIn 'Iv Duj} - Who's ship is big? {Hab SoSwI' nuq} - My mother's what is smooth?
constructions. but can we have the {ghorgh} and {nuqDaq} existing next to nouns ?
for example can we say:
{ghorgh DaSjaj mamej} when do we depart on monday ?
{DaSjaj ghorgh mamej} on monday when do we depart
I would put {ghorgh} first (same with {chay'} and {qatlh}), so the listener knows right away that it's a question, although as with a lot of the chuvmey, they just "occur at the beginning of the sentence", and the specific order is down to personal preference most of the time.
{nuqDaq tera'Daq mIl'oDmey tu'lu'} where on earth someone finds bears ?
{tera'Daq nuqDaq mIl'oDmey tu'lu'} on earth where someone finds bears ?
Since {nuqDaq} is a locative phrase just like {tera'Daq}, they can go either way around, although I'd put it in the spot where's I'd expect the answer to be:
tera'Daq nuqDaq mIl'oDmey tu'lu'? tera'Daq HuDaq mIl'oDmey tu'lu'.
qurgh
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 7:31 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
qurgh:
Where is the rule that they can't be part of a noun-noun construction, I must have missed it?
SuStel wrote this a few days ago, at the "who shall call them from the twilight ?" thread.
I hadn't read it. Looking back, he merely said it was unknown whether they can be used in that way. TKD says that the "word fits into the sentence in the position that would be occupied by the answer". To me this means, if the answer is {tIn SuStel Duj}, and the missing information I want is {SuStel}, then the way to ask the question would be {tIn 'Iv Duj}. The same would seem to make sense for {nuq}. If the answer is {Hab SoSlI' Quch} and the missing information is {Quch} then the question would be {Hab SoSlI' nuq?}. I don't believe this works for every situation though. I found {nuq Dargh DaneH} in the archive as an attempt to say "What type of tea do you want?". I don't think that works, since the answer to {nuq Dargh DaneH} would be something like {Duj Dargh DaneH} - "I want the ship's tea" with {nuq} filling the space of the owner/possessor of the tea, not the type/brand of tea. For that you probably do need to switch to something like {Dargh Segh DaneHbogh yIngu'}. qurgh
true. when it comes to noun-noun constructions which utilize {'Iv}/{nuq} confusion would/could arise. on the other hand though, I believe that if this confusion is semantical as opposed to grammatical, then this should pose no problem. if I say {much vIbejtaHvIS}, what does it mean ? "while I was watching a movie, the movie, movies, or the movies" ? why do we accept here this obvious semantic confusion, while at the same time reject noun-noun constructions which employ {'Iv}/{nuq} ? why are we willing to accept context, in order to clarify whether the {vI-} means I-he/she/it as opposed to I-them, while at the same time chopping off our own nuts by saying "in a noun-noun construction with question words, confusion could take place". this is contradictory to say the least. so, of course, this all comes down to "because maltz said so".. maj. I don't disagree. but I just can't buy that the problem here would be the "many possible alternate translations". finally, I could never understand the argument "okrand never used whatever". okrand created the language, and while doing so he wrote specific do's and don't's. for instance he said, you can't have in a SAO after the {'e'} a type-7 suffix. maj. but if I write something which doesn't violate a rule, why dismiss it if okrand never used it ? who can argue that okrand has used every possible combination in klingon, so that if what I write doesn't fall into these combinations, then it is wrong ? qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 16 Dec 2016 2:53 pm, "qurgh lungqIj" <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 7:31 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
qurgh:
Where is the rule that they can't be part of a noun-noun construction, I must have missed it?
SuStel wrote this a few days ago, at the "who shall call them from the twilight ?" thread.
I hadn't read it. Looking back, he merely said it was unknown whether they can be used in that way.
TKD says that the "word fits into the sentence in the position that would be occupied by the answer". To me this means, if the answer is {tIn SuStel Duj}, and the missing information I want is {SuStel}, then the way to ask the question would be {tIn 'Iv Duj}. The same would seem to make sense for {nuq}. If the answer is {Hab SoSlI' Quch} and the missing information is {Quch} then the question would be {Hab SoSlI' nuq?}.
I don't believe this works for every situation though. I found {nuq Dargh DaneH} in the archive as an attempt to say "What type of tea do you want?". I don't think that works, since the answer to {nuq Dargh DaneH} would be something like {Duj Dargh DaneH} - "I want the ship's tea" with {nuq} filling the space of the owner/possessor of the tea, not the type/brand of tea. For that you probably do need to switch to something like {Dargh Segh DaneHbogh yIngu'}.
qurgh
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 12/16/2016 9:00 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
but if I write something which doesn't violate a rule, why dismiss it if okrand never used it ? who can argue that okrand has used every possible combination in klingon, so that if what I write doesn't fall into these combinations, then it is wrong ?
There's not violating a rule, and then there's making up a new rule. You're trying to construct a sentence whose grammar doesn't follow from what we've been given, but which does mimic English grammar. This is a strong sign that you're trying to follow the rules of English to construct Klingon sentences. If you try to make a sentence using a rule you made up, even one which doesn't seem to violate any of Okrand's rules, we're going to demand to see some justification. This is why I tell you, when you ask why can't we say **pawpu' nuq Duj*/what ship has arrived?/, that Okrand hasn't created a rule that says *nuq* acts like /which?,/ and he's never constructed a sentence that acted that way. Those are the two ways we learn the rules of Klingon: Okrand says "this is a rule," or we deduce the rules from Okrand's examples. *nuq* goes in the place the answer would occupy. But if it's part of a noun-noun construction it the answer doesn't replace the entire noun-noun. If the answer were *pawpu' 'entepray',* what I've done is replace **nuq Duj**,* not just *nuq,* with the answer. And there's no rule that says we can do that or example of Okrand doing that. Furthermore, Okrand /has/ given us question words next to nouns, but they mean something very different. *nuq* and *'Iv* work like pronouns, and you can say things like *nuq Duj**vetlh*/what is that ship?/ and *yaSvetlh 'Iv*/who is that officer?/ You originally asked, we said that we can't have {'Iv} and {nuq} as part of noun-noun constructions. but can we have the {ghorgh} and {nuqDaq} existing next to nouns ? for example can we say: {ghorgh DaSjaj mamej} when do we depart on monday ? {DaSjaj ghorgh mamej} on monday when do we depart {nuqDaq tera'Daq mIl'oDmey tu'lu'} where on earth someone finds bears ? {tera'Daq nuqDaq mIl'oDmey tu'lu'} on earth where someone finds bears ? My answer is that in none of these sentences do we see question words as part of a noun-noun construction. In the first two we see an independent time expression*(DaSjaj)* and the question word *ghorgh* each standing alone. In the second two we see a locative noun *(tera'Daq)* and the question word *nuqDaq* each standing alone. There are no noun-noun constructions here. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
My answer is that in none of these sentences do we see question words as part of a noun- noun construction. In the first two we see an independent time expression* (DaSjaj)* and the question word *ghorgh* each standing alone. In the second two we see a locative noun *(tera'Daq)* and the question word *nuqDaq* each standing alone. There are no noun-noun constructions here.
So, would you accept the {ghorgh} and {nuqDaq} examples which I wrote, as being correct ? qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 16 Dec 2016 4:28 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/16/2016 9:00 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
but if I write something which doesn't violate a rule, why dismiss it if okrand never used it ? who can argue that okrand has used every possible combination in klingon, so that if what I write doesn't fall into these combinations, then it is wrong ?
There's not violating a rule, and then there's making up a new rule. You're trying to construct a sentence whose grammar doesn't follow from what we've been given, but which does mimic English grammar. This is a strong sign that you're trying to follow the rules of English to construct Klingon sentences.
If you try to make a sentence using a rule you made up, even one which doesn't seem to violate any of Okrand's rules, we're going to demand to see some justification. This is why I tell you, when you ask why can't we say **pawpu' nuq Duj** what ship has arrived?*, that Okrand hasn't created a rule that says *nuq* acts like *which?,* and he's never constructed a sentence that acted that way. Those are the two ways we learn the rules of Klingon: Okrand says "this is a rule," or we deduce the rules from Okrand's examples.
*nuq* goes in the place the answer would occupy. But if it's part of a noun-noun construction it the answer doesn't replace the entire noun-noun. If the answer were *pawpu' 'entepray',* what I've done is replace **nuq Duj**,* not just *nuq,* with the answer. And there's no rule that says we can do that or example of Okrand doing that.
Furthermore, Okrand *has* given us question words next to nouns, but they mean something very different. *nuq* and *'Iv* work like pronouns, and you can say things like *nuq Duj**vetlh** what is that ship?* and *yaSvetlh 'Iv** who is that officer?*
You originally asked,
we said that we can't have {'Iv} and {nuq} as part of noun-noun constructions. but can we have the {ghorgh} and {nuqDaq} existing next to nouns ?
for example can we say:
{ghorgh DaSjaj mamej} when do we depart on monday ?
{DaSjaj ghorgh mamej} on monday when do we depart
{nuqDaq tera'Daq mIl'oDmey tu'lu'} where on earth someone finds bears ?
{tera'Daq nuqDaq mIl'oDmey tu'lu'} on earth where someone finds bears ?
My answer is that in none of these sentences do we see question words as part of a noun-noun construction. In the first two we see an independent time expression* (DaSjaj)* and the question word *ghorgh* each standing alone. In the second two we see a locative noun *(tera'Daq)* and the question word *nuqDaq* each standing alone. There are no noun-noun constructions here.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 12/16/2016 9:36 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
My answer is that in none of these sentences do we see question words as part of a noun- noun construction. In the first two we see an independent time expression* (DaSjaj)* and the question word *ghorgh* each standing alone. In the second two we see a locative noun *(tera'Daq)* and the question word *nuqDaq* each standing alone. There are no noun-noun constructions here.
So, would you accept the {ghorgh} and {nuqDaq} examples which I wrote, as being correct ?
{ghorgh DaSjaj mamej} when do we depart on monday ? {DaSjaj ghorgh mamej} on monday when do we depart {nuqDaq tera'Daq mIl'oDmey tu'lu'} where on earth someone finds bears ? {tera'Daq nuqDaq mIl'oDmey tu'lu'} on earth where someone finds bears ? Tentatively, yes. There's no rule that says locative or temporal phrases must be unique, that two such phrases can't exist in the same sentence, but you /are/ following the rule that says locative phrases (and others) come at the beginning of the sentence. Understand that this is not an exact science. There are degrees of confidence in various constructs, and not everyone feels the same about every example. Sometimes you'll stretch the grammar farther than some people are willing to go; at these times you need to consider whether you yourself are confident in the grammar you're using and whether you could accommodate your listeners with an alternative expression. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
maj ! qatlho' SuStel ! qunnoH jan puqloD On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 5:00 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/16/2016 9:36 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
My answer is that in none of these sentences do we see question words as part of a noun- noun construction. In the first two we see an independent time expression (DaSjaj) and the question word ghorgh each standing alone. In the second two we see a locative noun (tera'Daq) and the question word nuqDaq each standing alone. There are no noun-noun constructions here.
So, would you accept the {ghorgh} and {nuqDaq} examples which I wrote, as being correct ?
{ghorgh DaSjaj mamej} when do we depart on monday ?
{DaSjaj ghorgh mamej} on monday when do we depart
{nuqDaq tera'Daq mIl'oDmey tu'lu'} where on earth someone finds bears ?
{tera'Daq nuqDaq mIl'oDmey tu'lu'} on earth where someone finds bears ?
Tentatively, yes. There's no rule that says locative or temporal phrases must be unique, that two such phrases can't exist in the same sentence, but you are following the rule that says locative phrases (and others) come at the beginning of the sentence.
Understand that this is not an exact science. There are degrees of confidence in various constructs, and not everyone feels the same about every example. Sometimes you'll stretch the grammar farther than some people are willing to go; at these times you need to consider whether you yourself are confident in the grammar you're using and whether you could accommodate your listeners with an alternative expression.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (3)
-
mayqel qunenoS -
qurgh lungqIj -
SuStel