At/in klingonska we read: http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-05-28-email.txt ---------- SIS. In a way everyone was correct with this one. It rained a few times during the weekend, so we were put into the situation to discuss it. SIS SISqu' SIStaH SISchoH All correct. SISlu', altho grammaticlly correct, he didn't particularly like. Someone COULD use it but to me it sounds like they skipped science class and don't know what the subject is. You can also give it an object and say things like the clouds rained down cats and dogs. ...or something like that; you get the idea. But when Marc and I went outside and drops of water were falling on us, he looked up and simply said "SIS". ---------- But at/in the paq'batlh we read: {ghIq QavwI'chaj DuQchu' qeylIS betleH chaHDaq SIStaHvIS negh 'Iw} "Then Kahless's bat'leth pierced the last of them, showered with the soldiers' blood". Why is the {negh 'Iw} the subject of {SIStaHvIS}? Shouldn't it be its' object? Shouldn't we have instead {negh 'Iw SIStaHvIS}? ~ Dana'an
I may be making a generous interpretation for the sake of consistency, but I do think that there is a certain logic to this: Clouds don't just produce rain; they become the rain, or at least parts of them do. Similarly, the blood of the soldiers is both the source and the emanation. However, unlike the case with clouds and rain, we tend not to use different words to distinguish between blood coursing through a person's veins and blood flying through the air, so "the soldiers' blood" fits as both the subject or the object. //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 1:47:18 PM To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list Subject: [tlhIngan Hol] object of the verb {SIS} At/in klingonska we read: http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-05-28-email.txt ---------- SIS. In a way everyone was correct with this one. It rained a few times during the weekend, so we were put into the situation to discuss it. SIS SISqu' SIStaH SISchoH All correct. SISlu', altho grammaticlly correct, he didn't particularly like. Someone COULD use it but to me it sounds like they skipped science class and don't know what the subject is. You can also give it an object and say things like the clouds rained down cats and dogs. ...or something like that; you get the idea. But when Marc and I went outside and drops of water were falling on us, he looked up and simply said "SIS". ---------- But at/in the paq'batlh we read: {ghIq QavwI'chaj DuQchu' qeylIS betleH chaHDaq SIStaHvIS negh 'Iw} "Then Kahless's bat'leth pierced the last of them, showered with the soldiers' blood". Why is the {negh 'Iw} the subject of {SIStaHvIS}? Shouldn't it be its' object? Shouldn't we have instead {negh 'Iw SIStaHvIS}? ~ Dana'an _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
loghaD:
Clouds don't just produce rain; they become the rain, or at least parts of them do. Similarly, the blood of the soldiers is both the source and the emanation. However, unlike the case with clouds and rain, we tend not to use different words to distinguish between blood coursing through a person's veins and blood flying through the air, so "the soldiers' blood" fits as both the subject or the object.
I understand this argument, and indeed it offers an explanation, if we understand the {SIStaHvIS negh 'Iw} to actually be {(negh 'Iw) SIStaHvIS negh 'Iw}. But is it this the case here? The thing which confuses me is that according to the klingonska article, if the thing which is being rained down is anything "unusual" then one would expect it to appear in the object position, not in the subject. ~ Dana'an
As I see it, the soldiers’ blood is the source. The stuff raining down is just… blood. It stopped belonging to the soldiers when it left their bodies. Just as clouds are left behind when they rain water, the soldiers’ bodies were left behind when they rained blood. It’s similar to the way that Klingons don’t see corpses as being meaningfully associated with the living people who once occupied them. Even the corpse of Kahless is just a corpse. charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Jun 14, 2021, at 8:36 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
loghaD:
Clouds don't just produce rain; they become the rain, or at least parts of them do. Similarly, the blood of the soldiers is both the source and the emanation. However, unlike the case with clouds and rain, we tend not to use different words to distinguish between blood coursing through a person's veins and blood flying through the air, so "the soldiers' blood" fits as both the subject or the object.
I understand this argument, and indeed it offers an explanation, if we understand the {SIStaHvIS negh 'Iw} to actually be {(negh 'Iw) SIStaHvIS negh 'Iw}. But is it this the case here?
The thing which confuses me is that according to the klingonska article, if the thing which is being rained down is anything "unusual" then one would expect it to appear in the object position, not in the subject.
~ Dana'an _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On the other hand though, perhaps I'm approaching this the wrong way, and the klingonska article isn't related at all to this paq'batlh sentence. The klingonska article talks about saying that something rains down something. But the paq'batlh line says that the thing which is raining down is blood. In the paq'batlh line we don't have an unspecified subject raining down something else; we have "that something else" being the actual subject. It's just that in the klingonska interview, this possibility wasn't explicitly pointed out.. ~ Dana'an
Am 15.06.2021 um 13:35 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
the paq'batlh line says that the thing which is raining down is blood. [...] we have "that something else" being the actual subject.
I haven't read the interview, nor the paqbatlh lines exactly. But I'd like to add that when Okrand told us about breadrumbs and confetti falling down, he used the verb {peD} – and the things raining down are the subject of the verb. I'm not saying this applies to {SIS} as well, but it's good to know. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/Word/PeD
(Lieven < MO, qepHom 2017): When you cut your bread and the crumbs fall out (like snow), you use the verb {peD}. It can also be used for instance, when you throw confetti, and the confetti falls down, then use {peD}. So, with other words, {peD} still means to snow, but it does not only refer to snow, but can also be used for other small things falling down slowly or rain down, like ashes. During explaining, it seemed like the bread is the subject of {peD}, but also the bread crumbs themselves. I don't know of a general word other than snow. Maybe rain down, but that's confusing, because rain still is {SIS}. Okrand did not give the English word for it, he just explained it. Transcript follows: MO: We just found a new word. LLL: Really? Tell me. MO: You got a piece of bread, a roll, with a hard crust, or whatever, and you cut it or you bite into it, it makes little crumbs. LLL: In German you would say krümeln. "Das Brötchen krümelt." It means the little crumbs are falling out of it. MO: Yes. The Klingon word for that is {peD}. LLL: So, could there be other things falling out? MO: Maybe. LLL: Oh, {peD} is "snowing" anyway. So it can also be used for crumbs. MO: So the bread is doing that. Or has done that. LLL: Would there be other... Oh no, it's not transitive, so you cannot {peD} something. It's only {peD}. MO: [nods] LLL: Is there anything else we need to know? MO: Oh, probably. Most people need to know a lot of things. LLL: So I'll have the questions later. It's not a new word, anyway. MO: No. It's a new usage. LLL: An extension of an existing word, I understand. MO: Yes. And that's one way to protect the three letters words. Cause they're an endangered species. You told me. LLL: You said it's for crumbs. What if I take confetti, for example, throw it in the air and it's raining down... so it's for everything falling down slowly? MO: [nods] LLL: But not rain? MO: No. LLL: So, water... If I'm spraying water we have {ghay}. And {SIS} is only related to rain. MO: No; {SIS} can also be used for something else, but I can't remember right now. Okrand may have been thinking of a chat he had with DloraH back in 1998: (DloraH, personal conversation with MO, 5/1998): It rained a few times during the weekend, so we were put into the situation to discuss it. {SIS. SISqu'. SIStaH. SISchoH.} All correct. {SISlu'}, although grammatically correct, he didn't particularly like... You can also give it an object and say things like "the clouds rained down cats and dogs" ... or something like that; you get the idea. But when Marc and I went outside and drops of water were falling on us, he looked up and simply said "{SIS}". The only paq’batlh line I know of with {SIS} is: ghIq QavwI'chaj DuQchu' qeylIS betleH chaHDaq SIStaHvIS negh 'Iw Then Kahless's bat'leth Pierced the last of them, Showered with the soldiers' blood. (PB 136-37) -- Voragh, Ca'Non Master of the Klingons -----------------------------------Original Message----------------------------------- From: Lieven L. Litaer Am 15.06.2021 um 13:35 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
the paq'batlh line says that the thing which is raining down is blood. [...] we have "that something else" being the actual subject.
I haven't read the interview, nor the paqbatlh lines exactly. But I'd like to add that when Okrand told us about breadrumbs and confetti falling down, he used the verb {peD} – and the things raining down are the subject of the verb. I'm not saying this applies to {SIS} as well, but it's good to know.
participants (5)
-
Felix Malmenbeck -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Steven Boozer -
Will Martin