can we place type-5 noun suffixes on the {'e'} of a sao ?
The words {jIH}, {SoH}, {ghaH}, etc, are pronouns, and they *can* take type-5 noun suffixes. For example, we can say: chaHmo', vIghro' tIQ wISampu' because of them we found the ancient cat Moving on.. The {'e'} of a sao, is a pronoun too. So, we *can* place on it too type-5 noun suffixes, thus producing constructions like: {verengan 'opuHwI' ghaH SoSlI''e'; not 'e'mo' Qang Damoj} Your mother is a ferengi prostitute; because of that you will never become a chancellor. Right ? ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 1/15/2020 8:20 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
The {'e'} of a sao, is a pronoun too. So, we *can* place on it too type-5 noun suffixes, thus producing constructions like:
{verengan 'opuHwI' ghaH SoSlI''e'; not 'e'mo' Qang Damoj}
Your mother is a ferengi prostitute; because of that you will never become a chancellor.
The pronouns *'e'* and *net* "are always treated as the object of the verb." Therefore this is ungrammatical, because *'e'mo'* is not the object of *moj.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
The pronouns 'e' and net "are always treated as the object of the verb." Therefore this is ungrammatical, because > 'e'mo' is not the object of moj.
hmm.. I didn't see that coming.. maj. Lets approach this differently. We know we can say: vIghro' tIQ'e' vIQej I cherish the ANCIENT CAT So, we *can* place the emphatic {'e'} on the object. With that in mind, lets write: {verengan 'opuHwI' ghaH SoSlI''e'; 'e''e' wISovmo', not Qang Damoj} Your mother is a ferengi prostitute; because we know THAT, you will never become a chancellor Would this be correct ? ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 1/15/2020 9:14 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
{verengan 'opuHwI' ghaH SoSlI''e'; 'e''e' wISovmo', not Qang Damoj}
Your mother is a ferengi prostitute; because we know THAT, you will never become a chancellor
No rule against it that I can see. I can imagine it being an effective rhetorical device under certain circumstances. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I’m just curious. What does this rather complex construction give you that the simpler {verengan ‘opuHwI’ ghaHmo’ SoSlI’’e’, not Qang Damoj} fails to convey? I’m not commenting on the validity of your original. Okrand or the community at large can decide that. I’m at peace with whatever they decide. I’m just wondering why the more straightforward approach is less preferable. My goal is simple curiosity and amusement. My hope is that you can be more amused by the continued discussion than distressed by it. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jan 15, 2020, at 9:14 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SuStel:
The pronouns 'e' and net "are always treated as the object of the verb." Therefore this is ungrammatical, because > 'e'mo' is not the object of moj.
hmm..
I didn't see that coming..
maj.
Lets approach this differently.
We know we can say:
vIghro' tIQ'e' vIQej I cherish the ANCIENT CAT
So, we *can* place the emphatic {'e'} on the object.
With that in mind, lets write:
{verengan 'opuHwI' ghaH SoSlI''e'; 'e''e' wISovmo', not Qang Damoj}
Your mother is a ferengi prostitute; because we know THAT, you will never become a chancellor
Would this be correct ?
~ mayqel qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
{verengan 'opuHwI' ghaH SoSlI''e'; 'e''e' wISovmo', not Qang Damoj} Your mother is a ferengi prostitute; because we know THAT, you will never become a chancellor On 1/15/2020 9:41 AM, Will Martin wrote:
I’m just curious. What does this rather complex construction give you that the simpler {verengan ‘opuHwI’ ghaHmo’ SoSlI’’e’, not Qang Damoj} fails to convey?
Emphasis. *tlhIngan wa': Qang vImoj 'e' vIHech. jIHoS! jIval! jI'IH! jInIvmo' Qang vIgheS 'e' vIqotlh.* *tlhIngan cha': bIHoSbej. bIvalbej. bI'IHbej. 'ach verengan 'opuHwI' ghaH SoSlI''e'. 'e''e' wISovmo', not Qang Damoj.* /Klingon One: I intend to become chancellor. I'm powerful! Clever! Good-looking! Because I'm superior, I deserve to take on the mantle of chancellor./ /Klingon Two: You certainly are powerful, clever, and good-looking. But your mother is a Ferengi prostitute. Because we know THAT, you will never become chancellor./ It's not necessarily the most concise way to say something like this, but it places emphasis on the /THAT/ which your alternative doesn't. The emphasis makes it clear that it's DESPITE all those things going for you that you won't become chancellor. If the second Klingon had simply said: *bIHoSbej. bIvalbej. bI'IHbej. 'ach verengan 'opuHwI' ghaHmo' SoSlI''e', not Qang Damoj.* /You //certainly are powerful, clever, and good-looking. But because your mother is a Ferengi prostitute, you will never become chancellor./ then the emphasis on the implied /despite/ doesn't appear. Anyway, the point of the question was not to convey any particular idea, it was to construct a grammatical sentence that included a type 5 suffix on *'e'.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
qatlho’. This is exactly the answer I was looking for. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jan 15, 2020, at 9:55 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
{verengan 'opuHwI' ghaH SoSlI''e'; 'e''e' wISovmo', not Qang Damoj} Your mother is a ferengi prostitute; because we know THAT, you will never become a chancellor
On 1/15/2020 9:41 AM, Will Martin wrote:
I’m just curious. What does this rather complex construction give you that the simpler {verengan ‘opuHwI’ ghaHmo’ SoSlI’’e’, not Qang Damoj} fails to convey? Emphasis.
tlhIngan wa': Qang vImoj 'e' vIHech. jIHoS! jIval! jI'IH! jInIvmo' Qang vIgheS 'e' vIqotlh.
tlhIngan cha': bIHoSbej. bIvalbej. bI'IHbej. 'ach verengan 'opuHwI' ghaH SoSlI''e'. 'e''e' wISovmo', not Qang Damoj.
Klingon One: I intend to become chancellor. I'm powerful! Clever! Good-looking! Because I'm superior, I deserve to take on the mantle of chancellor.
Klingon Two: You certainly are powerful, clever, and good-looking. But your mother is a Ferengi prostitute. Because we know THAT, you will never become chancellor.
It's not necessarily the most concise way to say something like this, but it places emphasis on the THAT which your alternative doesn't. The emphasis makes it clear that it's DESPITE all those things going for you that you won't become chancellor. If the second Klingon had simply said:
bIHoSbej. bIvalbej. bI'IHbej. 'ach verengan 'opuHwI' ghaHmo' SoSlI''e', not Qang Damoj.
You certainly are powerful, clever, and good-looking. But because your mother is a Ferengi prostitute, you will never become chancellor.
then the emphasis on the implied despite doesn't appear.
Anyway, the point of the question was not to convey any particular idea, it was to construct a grammatical sentence that included a type 5 suffix on 'e'.
-- 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
charghwI':
My goal is simple curiosity and amusement. My hope is that you can be more amused by the continued discussion than distressed by it.
fse: I understand that you may find strange some of the things I ask.. And perhaps you wonder: "why does he need to ask these questions ?". But darth sidious has already explained, why. In "revenge of the sith" he says: ..anakin, if one is to understand klingon, one must study all its aspects, not just the dogmatic narrow view of those who say "rephrase", or "don't ask that". If you wish to become a complete and wise speaker of klingon, you must embrace...a larger view of the language.. tlh: jIgheltaHvIS, chaq nImer ghelmeH mu'meywIj. 'e' vIyaj.. 'ej chaq bISIv: qatlh jaSHa' ghelnIS ? wa' meqmo' jIghel; 'ej meqvam Delchu'pu' sidious joH. qaStaHvIS sith bortaS much, jatlh sidious: … anakin, tlhIngan Hol yajmeH vay', Hoch DuHmeyDaj HaDnIS nuvvam. jatlh 'op: {jaS mu'tlheghvam yIchenmoH}; qoj jatlh 'opvam: {jaSHa' yIghelQo'}. 'ach, 'opvam Dabe'nIS nuv. lughchu'bogh mu'mey jatlhwI'pu' Da 'opvam; mu'mey luHonbe'lu'bogh jatlhwI'pu' Da 'opvam. 'ej qechmey pIm lajqangbe'taH nuvpu'vam. tlhIngan Hol jatlhwI' po' Damoj DaneHchugh, 'ej tlhIngan Hol Sov'a' DaSuq DaneHchugh, vaj vay' DalajnISchu': latlh tlhIngan Hol lo' DalajnIS.. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
participants (3)
-
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin