There is something I want to ask, but i don't know how to describe it.. So, lets approach this, as such : First of all, forget the klingon SAO. For this post we will forget that it exists. So, let me ask a trick question : Do you accept exclamations with no overt subject ? For example : teH ! wa'Hu' Ha'DIbaH vISopta'. it is true ! yesterday I ate an animal. Now, that you accepted the "exclamations with no overt subject", the second question comes : Could I write the previous sentence as such ? teH, wa'Hu' Ha'DIbaH vISopta'. it is true, yesterday I ate an animal. Do you accept this sentence ? If yes, then allow me to observe, that we no longer have an "exclamation with no overt subject" ; instead we have the sentence {teH} "it is true", which is followed by another sentence {wa'Hu' Ha'DIbaH vISopta'} "yesterday I ate an animal". And one could analyze this sentence as "what is true ?" "It is true that yesterday I ate an animal" So, if we accept the previous analysis, we finally come to the point of this mail : Consider this sentence : HarDI' chaH mob chaH when they believe they are alone If someone showed me this a few days ago, I would only translate it as "when their believing takes place, they are alone". But can I use this sentence in order to express the meaning too "when they believe (that) they are alone" ? Why is the {mob chaH} necessary to be considered as the outcome of the {HarDI' chaH} ? Why couldn't someone analyze this sentence as : "as soon as they believe what ?" "(that) they are alone" mop Hurgh qunnoq
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016, 12:03 mayqel qunenoS, <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
So, let me ask a trick question : Do you accept exclamations with no overt subject ? For example :
teH ! wa'Hu' Ha'DIbaH vISopta'. it is true ! yesterday I ate an animal.
Those are two perfectly legal Klingon sentences. Now, that you accepted the "exclamations with no overt subject", the
second question comes : Could I write the previous sentence as such ?
teH, wa'Hu' Ha'DIbaH vISopta'. it is true, yesterday I ate an animal.
You're just joining two sentences with a comma. But how we write Klingon in Latin script is just a convention, and has nothing to do with how Klingon is written "natively". Do you accept this sentence ? If yes, then allow me to observe, that
we no longer have an "exclamation with no overt subject" ; instead we have the sentence {teH} "it is true", which is followed by another sentence {wa'Hu' Ha'DIbaH vISopta'} "yesterday I ate an animal". And one could analyze this sentence as
"what is true ?" "It is true that yesterday I ate an animal"
The implicit subject of the first sentence is {ngoDvam} or some such. So, if we accept the previous analysis, we finally come to the point
of this mail :
Consider this sentence :
HarDI' chaH mob chaH when they believe they are alone
If someone showed me this a few days ago, I would only translate it as "when their believing takes place, they are alone".
But can I use this sentence in order to express the meaning too "when they believe (that) they are alone" ?
No. And what's the relation with your previous example? Here, the second sentence is apparently the object of the first. They're not alike. Why is the {mob chaH} necessary
to be considered as the outcome of the {HarDI' chaH} ? Why couldn't someone analyze this sentence as :
"as soon as they believe what ?" "(that) they are alone"
Because that's not how Klingon grammar works? -- De'vID
ok, thanks ! On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:22 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016, 12:03 mayqel qunenoS, <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
So, let me ask a trick question : Do you accept exclamations with no overt subject ? For example :
teH ! wa'Hu' Ha'DIbaH vISopta'. it is true ! yesterday I ate an animal.
Those are two perfectly legal Klingon sentences.
Now, that you accepted the "exclamations with no overt subject", the second question comes : Could I write the previous sentence as such ?
teH, wa'Hu' Ha'DIbaH vISopta'. it is true, yesterday I ate an animal.
You're just joining two sentences with a comma. But how we write Klingon in Latin script is just a convention, and has nothing to do with how Klingon is written "natively".
Do you accept this sentence ? If yes, then allow me to observe, that we no longer have an "exclamation with no overt subject" ; instead we have the sentence {teH} "it is true", which is followed by another sentence {wa'Hu' Ha'DIbaH vISopta'} "yesterday I ate an animal". And one could analyze this sentence as
"what is true ?" "It is true that yesterday I ate an animal"
The implicit subject of the first sentence is {ngoDvam} or some such.
So, if we accept the previous analysis, we finally come to the point of this mail :
Consider this sentence :
HarDI' chaH mob chaH when they believe they are alone
If someone showed me this a few days ago, I would only translate it as "when their believing takes place, they are alone".
But can I use this sentence in order to express the meaning too "when they believe (that) they are alone" ?
No. And what's the relation with your previous example? Here, the second sentence is apparently the object of the first. They're not alike.
Why is the {mob chaH} necessary to be considered as the outcome of the {HarDI' chaH} ? Why couldn't someone analyze this sentence as :
"as soon as they believe what ?" "(that) they are alone"
Because that's not how Klingon grammar works?
-- De'vID
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:03 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
So, let me ask a trick question : Do you accept exclamations with no overt subject ? For example :
teH ! wa'Hu' Ha'DIbaH vISopta'. it is true ! yesterday I ate an animal.
Sentences with unstated, implicit subjects are fine. But the trick is that the example you gave is grammatically correct yet isn't respecting the tools of Klingon grammar. If you want to express certainty, use the Type 6 verb suffix {-bej}. wa'Hu' Ha'DIbaH vISopbejta'. If I were to do it your way, I'd actually put the {teH} sentence last. {vISopta'. teH!} "I did eat it. It's true!" However, I don't think there's anything particularly hard to believe about eating meat. :-P -- ghunchu'wI'
But the trick is that the example you gave is grammatically correct yet isn't respecting the tools of Klingon grammar
I didn't know that, thanks ! On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:03 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
So, let me ask a trick question : Do you accept exclamations with no overt subject ? For example :
teH ! wa'Hu' Ha'DIbaH vISopta'. it is true ! yesterday I ate an animal.
Sentences with unstated, implicit subjects are fine. But the trick is that the example you gave is grammatically correct yet isn't respecting the tools of Klingon grammar. If you want to express certainty, use the Type 6 verb suffix {-bej}.
wa'Hu' Ha'DIbaH vISopbejta'.
If I were to do it your way, I'd actually put the {teH} sentence last. {vISopta'. teH!} "I did eat it. It's true!" However, I don't think there's anything particularly hard to believe about eating meat. :-P
-- ghunchu'wI' _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (3)
-
Alan Anderson -
De'vID -
mayqel qunenoS