povvam <paq'batlh>Daq mu'tlheghvam 'IH vItu': "DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'." /Now I will tell you why I am here./ toH, jaj naQ vIqeltaH, 'ej DaH jIghel vIneH. 'ach wa'DIch vIQIj: "jIHtaH meq" 'oHbe'chu' mu'tlhegh lugh, 'ej "naDev jIHtaH" 'oHbej mu'tlhegh lugh, 'ach "naDev jIHtaHbogh" 'oHlaH'a' /adverb/ lugh? lughnIS, qar'a'? QImSIr
DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'." /Now I will tell you why I am here./ this is strange indeed. the english translation seems to be "now I will tell you the reason which I am here". but this sounds wrong. so, if I was to translate the english sentence to klingon, I would write: {DaH naDev jIHmoHtaHbogh meq Saja'} qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 17 Dec 2016 8:01 am, "Brian Cote" <wearetheinformation00@gmail.com> wrote:
povvam <paq'batlh>Daq mu'tlheghvam 'IH vItu':
"DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'." /Now I will tell you why I am here./
toH, jaj naQ vIqeltaH, 'ej DaH jIghel vIneH.
'ach wa'DIch vIQIj:
"jIHtaH meq" 'oHbe'chu' mu'tlhegh lugh, 'ej "naDev jIHtaH" 'oHbej mu'tlhegh lugh, 'ach "naDev jIHtaHbogh" 'oHlaH'a' /adverb/ lugh? lughnIS, qar'a'?
QImSIr
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Yes, the Paq'Batlh is definitely full of great/weird sentences like this. QImSIr On Saturday, December 17, 2016, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'."
/Now I will tell you why I am here./
this is strange indeed. the english translation seems to be "now I will tell you the reason which I am here". but this sounds wrong. so, if I was to translate the english sentence to klingon, I would write:
{DaH naDev jIHmoHtaHbogh meq Saja'}
qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 17 Dec 2016 8:01 am, "Brian Cote" <wearetheinformation00@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','wearetheinformation00@gmail.com');>> wrote:
povvam <paq'batlh>Daq mu'tlheghvam 'IH vItu':
"DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'." /Now I will tell you why I am here./
toH, jaj naQ vIqeltaH, 'ej DaH jIghel vIneH.
'ach wa'DIch vIQIj:
"jIHtaH meq" 'oHbe'chu' mu'tlhegh lugh, 'ej "naDev jIHtaH" 'oHbej mu'tlhegh lugh, 'ach "naDev jIHtaHbogh" 'oHlaH'a' /adverb/ lugh? lughnIS, qar'a'?
QImSIr
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org');> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 12/17/2016 12:15 PM, Brian Cote wrote:
Yes, the Paq'Batlh is definitely full of great/weird sentences like this.
QImSIr
On Saturday, December 17, 2016, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote:
DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'."
/Now I will tell you why I am here./
this is strange indeed. the english translation seems to be "now I will tell you the reason which I am here". but this sounds wrong. so, if I was to translate the english sentence to klingon, I would write:
{DaH naDev jIHmoHtaHbogh meq Saja'}
qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 17 Dec 2016 8:01 am, "Brian Cote" <wearetheinformation00@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','wearetheinformation00@gmail.com');>> wrote:
povvam <paq'batlh>Daq mu'tlheghvam 'IH vItu':
"DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'." /Now I will tell you why I am here./
toH, jaj naQ vIqeltaH, 'ej DaH jIghel vIneH.
'ach wa'DIch vIQIj:
"jIHtaH meq" 'oHbe'chu' mu'tlhegh lugh, 'ej "naDev jIHtaH" 'oHbej mu'tlhegh lugh, 'ach "naDev jIHtaHbogh" 'oHlaH'a' /adverb/ lugh? lughnIS, qar'a'?
QImSIr
See TKD page 172, first line. -- SuStel http://www.trimboli.name/
ok, I read it; {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'}. however based on what I know, I can't analyze it. "here which I am being I don't know it". shouldn't the {naDev} always come first ? and what is its role in that sentence ? is it the subject of the {jIHtaHbogh}, the object of {vISovbe'}, or both ? as I wrote earlier in this thread, I am obviously missing something here, and by the looks of it, it must be something pretty important.. qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 17 Dec 2016 7:46 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/17/2016 12:15 PM, Brian Cote wrote:
Yes, the Paq'Batlh is definitely full of great/weird sentences like this.
QImSIr
On Saturday, December 17, 2016, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'."
/Now I will tell you why I am here./
this is strange indeed. the english translation seems to be "now I will tell you the reason which I am here". but this sounds wrong. so, if I was to translate the english sentence to klingon, I would write:
{DaH naDev jIHmoHtaHbogh meq Saja'}
qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 17 Dec 2016 8:01 am, "Brian Cote" <wearetheinformation00@gmail.com> wrote:
povvam <paq'batlh>Daq mu'tlheghvam 'IH vItu':
"DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'." /Now I will tell you why I am here./
toH, jaj naQ vIqeltaH, 'ej DaH jIghel vIneH.
'ach wa'DIch vIQIj:
"jIHtaH meq" 'oHbe'chu' mu'tlhegh lugh, 'ej "naDev jIHtaH" 'oHbej mu'tlhegh lugh, 'ach "naDev jIHtaHbogh" 'oHlaH'a' /adverb/ lugh? lughnIS, qar'a'?
QImSIr
See TKD page 172, first line.
-- SuStelhttp://www.trimboli.name/
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 12/17/2016 1:40 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
ok, I read it; {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'}.
however based on what I know, I can't analyze it. "here which I am being I don't know it". shouldn't the {naDev} always come first ? and what is its role in that sentence ? is it the subject of the {jIHtaHbogh}, the object of {vISovbe'}, or both ?
as I wrote earlier in this thread, I am obviously missing something here, and by the looks of it, it must be something pretty important..
I've never heard a satisfactory analysis of the sentence either. But Okrand obviously has one to use the *jIHtaHbogh* word more than once. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'." /Now I will tell you why I am here./
if the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is indeed a noun, them I believe this resembles the "ship in which I fled" problem. if we accept the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} as a noun, then obviously by the same reasoning we need to accept {Duj jInarghbogh} as a noun too, unless the {naDev} is the object of {jIHtaHbogh}, thus producing "the here which I am being". of course in star trek everything is possible, so perhaps someone can change state of being thus from a humanoid becoming a place.. but then again the english translation doesn't say "now I will tell you why I became the here". qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 17 Dec 2016 10:31 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/17/2016 1:40 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
ok, I read it; {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'}.
however based on what I know, I can't analyze it. "here which I am being I don't know it". shouldn't the {naDev} always come first ? and what is its role in that sentence ? is it the subject of the {jIHtaHbogh}, the object of {vISovbe'}, or both ?
as I wrote earlier in this thread, I am obviously missing something here, and by the looks of it, it must be something pretty important..
I've never heard a satisfactory analysis of the sentence either. But Okrand obviously has one to use the *jIHtaHbogh* word more than once.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Slightly beside mayqel's point, but in the phrase {naDev jIHtaH} /I am here/ (see TKD 27-28pp), the {naDev} is implicitly locative, right? So it can never mean /I am the here/(?) It should be considered {naDev[Daq] jIHtaH} grammatically, although the {-Daq} is never written explicitly in this case. That is correct, right? QImSIr On Sunday, December 18, 2016, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'." /Now I will tell you why I am here./
if the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is indeed a noun, them I believe this resembles the "ship in which I fled" problem.
if we accept the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} as a noun, then obviously by the same reasoning we need to accept {Duj jInarghbogh} as a noun too, unless the {naDev} is the object of {jIHtaHbogh}, thus producing "the here which I am being".
of course in star trek everything is possible, so perhaps someone can change state of being thus from a humanoid becoming a place.. but then again the english translation doesn't say "now I will tell you why I became the here".
qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 17 Dec 2016 10:31 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sustel@trimboli.name');>> wrote:
On 12/17/2016 1:40 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
ok, I read it; {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'}.
however based on what I know, I can't analyze it. "here which I am being I don't know it". shouldn't the {naDev} always come first ? and what is its role in that sentence ? is it the subject of the {jIHtaHbogh}, the object of {vISovbe'}, or both ?
as I wrote earlier in this thread, I am obviously missing something here, and by the looks of it, it must be something pretty important..
I've never heard a satisfactory analysis of the sentence either. But Okrand obviously has one to use the *jIHtaHbogh* word more than once.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org');> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
yes, you're right. I obviously confused you, because of my previous comments. here's what happened: De'vID wrote that the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun. However I wasn't (and still am) unable to accept that. In order for a {-bogh} clause to be able to be considered a noun, then that noun has to be either a subject, or an object of the verb which carries the {-bogh}. {muqIpta' yaS} the officer who hit me {paq qanobta'bogh} the book which I gave you When De'vID wrote that the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun, I wrote that the only way this can take place is if the {naDev} is considered to be the object of the {jIHtaHbogh}. But if that was true, then the translation could only be "the here which I am being". Unless if it is possible, for a locative word like {naDev} to be considered an object. but noone here has ever taught me that this is possible. And how could it be ? If it was possible, then at the sentence {naDev, qama' qIp yaS} "here the officer hits the prisoner", we would have two objects before the verb thus producing object-object-verb-subject (which is illegal). And of course, noone can say that the {naDev} is a beneficiary since it carries no {-vaD}, and it isn't affected from the action. So, until someone is able to explain to me this matter in a logical and meaningful way, I will continue to believe that there is no way we can explain this baq'batlh sentence by the grammar we know so far. qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 18 Dec 2016 1:18 pm, "Brian Cote" <wearetheinformation00@gmail.com> wrote:
Slightly beside mayqel's point, but in the phrase {naDev jIHtaH} /I am here/ (see TKD 27-28pp), the {naDev} is implicitly locative, right? So it can never mean /I am the here/(?) It should be considered {naDev[Daq] jIHtaH} grammatically, although the {-Daq} is never written explicitly in this case. That is correct, right?
QImSIr
On Sunday, December 18, 2016, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'." /Now I will tell you why I am here./
if the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is indeed a noun, them I believe this resembles the "ship in which I fled" problem.
if we accept the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} as a noun, then obviously by the same reasoning we need to accept {Duj jInarghbogh} as a noun too, unless the {naDev} is the object of {jIHtaHbogh}, thus producing "the here which I am being".
of course in star trek everything is possible, so perhaps someone can change state of being thus from a humanoid becoming a place.. but then again the english translation doesn't say "now I will tell you why I became the here".
qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 17 Dec 2016 10:31 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/17/2016 1:40 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
ok, I read it; {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'}.
however based on what I know, I can't analyze it. "here which I am being I don't know it". shouldn't the {naDev} always come first ? and what is its role in that sentence ? is it the subject of the {jIHtaHbogh}, the object of {vISovbe'}, or both ?
as I wrote earlier in this thread, I am obviously missing something here, and by the looks of it, it must be something pretty important..
I've never heard a satisfactory analysis of the sentence either. But Okrand obviously has one to use the *jIHtaHbogh* word more than once.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 12/18/2016 6:52 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
When De'vID wrote that the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun, I wrote that the only way this can take place is if the {naDev} is considered to be the object of the {jIHtaHbogh}. But if that was true, then the translation could only be "the here which I am being".
Unless "to be" sentences don't follow the usual rules of having subjects and objects per se. What, for instance, is the subject of *tlhIngan ghaH*? And if it's *gha**H,* then what's the verb? And if there is no verb, then what's the *ghaH* doing in *tlhIngan ghaH yaS'e'*? -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I agree. Obviously there is grammar here, which we don't yet know. Because of this reason, attempts to analyze sentences like the aforementioned one are futile. let alone draw conclusions, which we could employ in our daily writing. Obviously this is another {ngIq} case.. qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 18 Dec 2016 2:55 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/18/2016 6:52 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
When De'vID wrote that the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun, I wrote that the only way this can take place is if the {naDev} is considered to be the object of the {jIHtaHbogh}. But if that was true, then the translation could only be "the here which I am being".
Unless "to be" sentences don't follow the usual rules of having subjects and objects per se. What, for instance, is the subject of *tlhIngan ghaH*? And if it's *gha**H,* then what's the verb? And if there is no verb, then what's the *ghaH* doing in *tlhIngan ghaH yaS'e'*?
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
however, if De'vID's analysis (that the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun) is correct, then this raises the question: why at the tkd we have {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'} instead of {naDev jIHtaHbogh vISovbe'} ? Unless of course, the rule could be assumed, that in {-bogh}ed locatives, the locative can either follow or precede the {-bogh}. But whatever the case, this is all speculative thus unable to be accepted and put to practice. qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 18 Dec 2016 3:08 pm, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree. Obviously there is grammar here, which we don't yet know. Because of this reason, attempts to analyze sentences like the aforementioned one are futile.
let alone draw conclusions, which we could employ in our daily writing. Obviously this is another {ngIq} case..
qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 18 Dec 2016 2:55 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/18/2016 6:52 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
When De'vID wrote that the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun, I wrote that the only way this can take place is if the {naDev} is considered to be the object of the {jIHtaHbogh}. But if that was true, then the translation could only be "the here which I am being".
Unless "to be" sentences don't follow the usual rules of having subjects and objects per se. What, for instance, is the subject of *tlhIngan ghaH*? And if it's *gha**H,* then what's the verb? And if there is no verb, then what's the *ghaH* doing in *tlhIngan ghaH yaS'e'*?
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
I thought that in: tlhIngan ghaH {ghaH} could mean "he", or "he is" and could take suffixes like a verb. DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'. = "now I tell the reason of (I who am here)" ----Original message----
From : mihkoun@gmail.com Date : 18/12/2016 - 10:44 (GMTST) To : tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject : Re: [tlhIngan Hol] paq'batlh mu'tlhegh DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'." /Now I will tell you why I am here./
On 17 December 2016 at 07:01, Brian Cote <wearetheinformation00@gmail.com> wrote:
povvam <paq'batlh>Daq mu'tlheghvam 'IH vItu':
"DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'." /Now I will tell you why I am here./
toH, jaj naQ vIqeltaH, 'ej DaH jIghel vIneH.
'ach wa'DIch vIQIj:
"jIHtaH meq" 'oHbe'chu' mu'tlhegh lugh, 'ej "naDev jIHtaH" 'oHbej mu'tlhegh lugh, 'ach "naDev jIHtaHbogh" 'oHlaH'a' /adverb/ lugh? lughnIS, qar'a'?
You're parsing this sentence incorrectly. {naDev} is a noun. {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun. {naDev jIHtaHbogh meq} is a noun-noun construction. Also, think about what it would mean if {naDev} were an adverbial instead of a noun. The sentence would mean *"Now, here (in this present location), I will tell you my reason for being." -- De'vID
De'vID:
{naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun.
I can't understand how this could be correct as a {-bogh}ed noun. I know we can say {paq qanobta'bogh} for "the book which I gave you". but here the {paq} is the object of {nob}. On the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is the {naDev} an object ? and if yes, the object of what verb ? the object of {jIH} ? I can understand the {jIH} taking an object in the context of {SuvwI' jIH}. but then, the {naDev jIHtaH} would mean "I am here" not in the sense "I am present here", but in the sense "I am the here". Could you explain what's happening ? Obviously there is something important I am missing here.. qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 17 Dec 2016 10:13 am, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17 December 2016 at 07:01, Brian Cote <wearetheinformation00@gmail.com> wrote:
povvam <paq'batlh>Daq mu'tlheghvam 'IH vItu':
"DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'." /Now I will tell you why I am here./
toH, jaj naQ vIqeltaH, 'ej DaH jIghel vIneH.
'ach wa'DIch vIQIj:
"jIHtaH meq" 'oHbe'chu' mu'tlhegh lugh, 'ej "naDev jIHtaH" 'oHbej mu'tlhegh lugh, 'ach "naDev jIHtaHbogh" 'oHlaH'a' /adverb/ lugh? lughnIS, qar'a'?
You're parsing this sentence incorrectly.
{naDev} is a noun. {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun. {naDev jIHtaHbogh meq} is a noun-noun construction.
Also, think about what it would mean if {naDev} were an adverbial instead of a noun. The sentence would mean *"Now, here (in this present location), I will tell you my reason for being."
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Dec 17, 2016 09:24, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote: De'vID:
{naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun.
I can't understand how this could be correct as a {-bogh}ed noun. I know we can say {paq qanobta'bogh} for "the book which I gave you". but here the {paq} is the object of {nob}. On the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is the {naDev} an object ? and if yes, the object of what verb ? the object of {jIH} ? I can understand the {jIH} taking an object in the context of {SuvwI' jIH}. but then, the {naDev jIHtaH} would mean "I am here" not in the sense "I am present here", but in the sense "I am the here". The SkyBox {Qo'noS} card has the following sentence: {pa’ ’oHtaH vaS’a’ ’e’.} "This is where the Klingon Great Hall is located" That no more means "the Great Hall is 'the there'" than {naDev jIHtaH} means "I am 'the here'." The suffix {-taH} indicates an ongoing activity, and "being at a location" is apparently considered a type of ongoing activity. See also KGT p.25: {tera'ngan ghaH qama''e'} "The prisoner is a Terran" {bIghHa'Daq ghaHtaH qama''e'} "The prisoner is in the prison" Even though that sentence has a {-Daq}ed noun, the structure is essentially the same. {bIghHa'Daq ghaHtaH} means "he/she is in prison", and {naDev ghaHtaH} means "he/she is here". -- De'vID
De'vID:
{naDev ghaHtaH} means "he/she is here".
Yes, I can understand this; but if at the above sentence we had the {-bogh} ({naDev ghaHtaHbogh}), then what would that mean ? My difficulty in understanding the original paq'batlh sentence, had/has to do with accepting the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} as a noun. If that sentence went: {DaH naDev jIHtaH meq Saja'}, then I could read it as "now, the reason of my being here, I will tell you". But the addition of {-bogh} severely messes me up. It is its presence that I can't explain. qunnoH jan puqloD On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:51 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 2016 09:24, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
{naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun.
I can't understand how this could be correct as a {-bogh}ed noun.
I know we can say {paq qanobta'bogh} for "the book which I gave you". but here the {paq} is the object of {nob}.
On the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is the {naDev} an object ? and if yes, the object of what verb ? the object of {jIH} ? I can understand the {jIH} taking an object in the context of {SuvwI' jIH}. but then, the {naDev jIHtaH} would mean "I am here" not in the sense "I am present here", but in the sense "I am the here".
The SkyBox {Qo'noS} card has the following sentence: {pa’ ’oHtaH vaS’a’ ’e’.} "This is where the Klingon Great Hall is located"
That no more means "the Great Hall is 'the there'" than {naDev jIHtaH} means "I am 'the here'."
The suffix {-taH} indicates an ongoing activity, and "being at a location" is apparently considered a type of ongoing activity.
See also KGT p.25: {tera'ngan ghaH qama''e'} "The prisoner is a Terran" {bIghHa'Daq ghaHtaH qama''e'} "The prisoner is in the prison"
Even though that sentence has a {-Daq}ed noun, the structure is essentially the same. {bIghHa'Daq ghaHtaH} means "he/she is in prison", and {naDev ghaHtaH} means "he/she is here".
-- De'vID
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
this just occured to me.. paq'batlh doesn't have punctuation, right ? so, what if at the original sentence the punctuation goes: {DaH, naDev, jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'} if that would be the case, I could accept this as "now, here, I will tell you my reason of being". granted, perhaps this produces a different meaning than the given one, but its the only solution I can think of. damn, this sentence drives me crazy ! qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 19 Dec 2016 11:36 am, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
{naDev ghaHtaH} means "he/she is here".
Yes, I can understand this; but if at the above sentence we had the {-bogh} ({naDev ghaHtaHbogh}), then what would that mean ?
My difficulty in understanding the original paq'batlh sentence, had/has to do with accepting the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} as a noun.
If that sentence went: {DaH naDev jIHtaH meq Saja'}, then I could read it as "now, the reason of my being here, I will tell you". But the addition of {-bogh} severely messes me up. It is its presence that I can't explain.
qunnoH jan puqloD
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:51 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 2016 09:24, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
{naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun.
I can't understand how this could be correct as a {-bogh}ed noun.
I know we can say {paq qanobta'bogh} for "the book which I gave you". but here the {paq} is the object of {nob}.
On the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is the {naDev} an object ? and if yes, the
object
of what verb ? the object of {jIH} ? I can understand the {jIH} taking an object in the context of {SuvwI' jIH}. but then, the {naDev jIHtaH} would mean "I am here" not in the sense "I am present here", but in the sense "I am the here".
The SkyBox {Qo'noS} card has the following sentence: {pa’ ’oHtaH vaS’a’ ’e’.} "This is where the Klingon Great Hall is located"
That no more means "the Great Hall is 'the there'" than {naDev jIHtaH} means "I am 'the here'."
The suffix {-taH} indicates an ongoing activity, and "being at a location" is apparently considered a type of ongoing activity.
See also KGT p.25: {tera'ngan ghaH qama''e'} "The prisoner is a Terran" {bIghHa'Daq ghaHtaH qama''e'} "The prisoner is in the prison"
Even though that sentence has a {-Daq}ed noun, the structure is essentially the same. {bIghHa'Daq ghaHtaH} means "he/she is in prison", and {naDev ghaHtaH} means "he/she is here".
-- De'vID
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
and perhaps this explanation is compatible with the tkd sentence {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'}. "I don't know the here (=I don't know what/where is this "here") which I am being (=occupying)". qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 19 Dec 2016 12:53 pm, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
this just occured to me..
paq'batlh doesn't have punctuation, right ? so, what if at the original sentence the punctuation goes:
{DaH, naDev, jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'}
if that would be the case, I could accept this as "now, here, I will tell you my reason of being".
granted, perhaps this produces a different meaning than the given one, but its the only solution I can think of.
damn, this sentence drives me crazy !
qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 19 Dec 2016 11:36 am, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
{naDev ghaHtaH} means "he/she is here".
Yes, I can understand this; but if at the above sentence we had the {-bogh} ({naDev ghaHtaHbogh}), then what would that mean ?
My difficulty in understanding the original paq'batlh sentence, had/has to do with accepting the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} as a noun.
If that sentence went: {DaH naDev jIHtaH meq Saja'}, then I could read it as "now, the reason of my being here, I will tell you". But the addition of {-bogh} severely messes me up. It is its presence that I can't explain.
qunnoH jan puqloD
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:51 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 2016 09:24, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
{naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun.
I can't understand how this could be correct as a {-bogh}ed noun.
I know we can say {paq qanobta'bogh} for "the book which I gave you".
but
here the {paq} is the object of {nob}.
On the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is the {naDev} an object ? and if yes, the object of what verb ? the object of {jIH} ? I can understand the {jIH} taking an object in the context of {SuvwI' jIH}. but then, the {naDev jIHtaH} would mean "I am here" not in the sense "I am present here", but in the sense "I am the here".
The SkyBox {Qo'noS} card has the following sentence: {pa’ ’oHtaH vaS’a’ ’e’.} "This is where the Klingon Great Hall is located"
That no more means "the Great Hall is 'the there'" than {naDev jIHtaH} means "I am 'the here'."
The suffix {-taH} indicates an ongoing activity, and "being at a location" is apparently considered a type of ongoing activity.
See also KGT p.25: {tera'ngan ghaH qama''e'} "The prisoner is a Terran" {bIghHa'Daq ghaHtaH qama''e'} "The prisoner is in the prison"
Even though that sentence has a {-Daq}ed noun, the structure is essentially the same. {bIghHa'Daq ghaHtaH} means "he/she is in prison", and {naDev ghaHtaH} means "he/she is here".
-- De'vID
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Dec 19, 2016 10:36, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote: De'vID:
{naDev ghaHtaH} means "he/she is here".
Yes, I can understand this; but if at the above sentence we had the {-bogh} ({naDev ghaHtaHbogh}), then what would that mean ? "here where he/she is" What's difficult about this? {-bogh} turns a sentence into a relative clause. {SuvwI' HoHpu'} "he killed the warrior" {SuvwI' HoHpu'bogh} "the warrior whom he killed" {naDev ghaHtaH} "he is here" {naDev ghaHtaHbogh} "here where he is" What's the difficulty? Is it that you don't accept that the location is the object of the pronoun/verb? Consider {pa' 'oHtaH vaS'a''e'}. What role does {pa'} play relative to {'oHtaH}? My difficulty in understanding the original paq'batlh sentence, had/has to do with accepting the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} as a noun. {[noun] [verb][suffix]bogh} is a noun. What else could it be? This is just a standard relative clause. If that sentence went: {DaH naDev jIHtaH meq Saja'}, then I could read it as "now, the reason of my being here, I will tell you". But the addition of {-bogh} severely messes me up. It is its presence that I can't explain. What you wrote is ungrammatical as a single sentence. The sentence from the paq'batlh is perfectly formed according to known Klingon grammar and has a clear meaning. -- De'vID
De'vID:
{naDev ghaHtaHbogh} "here where he is"
I didn't know that the {-bogh} can express "where". if that is the case, then I can understand the sentence from paq'batlh. however I am curious.. in light of the {-bogh} being able to express the meaning of "where", how would you explain the tkd p.172 sentence: {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'} ? "here where I am being" ? but in the {naDev ghaHtaHbogh} "here where he is" example that you wrote, the {naDev} precedes the {-bogh}.. qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 19 Dec 2016 2:30 pm, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 19, 2016 10:36, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
{naDev ghaHtaH} means "he/she is here".
Yes, I can understand this; but if at the above sentence we had the {-bogh} ({naDev ghaHtaHbogh}), then what would that mean ?
"here where he/she is"
What's difficult about this? {-bogh} turns a sentence into a relative clause.
{SuvwI' HoHpu'} "he killed the warrior" {SuvwI' HoHpu'bogh} "the warrior whom he killed"
{naDev ghaHtaH} "he is here" {naDev ghaHtaHbogh} "here where he is"
What's the difficulty? Is it that you don't accept that the location is the object of the pronoun/verb?
Consider {pa' 'oHtaH vaS'a''e'}. What role does {pa'} play relative to {'oHtaH}?
My difficulty in understanding the original paq'batlh sentence, had/has to do with accepting the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} as a noun.
{[noun] [verb][suffix]bogh} is a noun. What else could it be? This is just a standard relative clause.
If that sentence went: {DaH naDev jIHtaH meq Saja'}, then I could read it as "now, the reason of my being here, I will tell you". But the addition of {-bogh} severely messes me up. It is its presence that I can't explain.
What you wrote is ungrammatical as a single sentence. The sentence from the paq'batlh is perfectly formed according to known Klingon grammar and has a clear meaning.
-- De'vID
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
In {naDev ghaHtaHbogh}, {-bogh} isn't expressing "where." Location is involved only due to {naDev}. "Where" as a convenient English word you can use to help translate the whole expression. ~mIp'av On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 7:59 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
{naDev ghaHtaHbogh} "here where he is"
I didn't know that the {-bogh} can express "where". if that is the case, then I can understand the sentence from paq'batlh.
maj. however, how would you explain tkd's {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'}, and in particular the placement of {naDev} after the {jIHtaHbogh} and not before it ? qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 19 Dec 2016 4:05 pm, "Ed Bailey" <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
In {naDev ghaHtaHbogh}, {-bogh} isn't expressing "where." Location is involved only due to {naDev}. "Where" as a convenient English word you can use to help translate the whole expression.
~mIp'av
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 7:59 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
{naDev ghaHtaHbogh} "here where he is"
I didn't know that the {-bogh} can express "where". if that is the case, then I can understand the sentence from paq'batlh.
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 9:07 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote: maj. however, how would you explain tkd's {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'}, and
in particular the placement of {naDev} after the {jIHtaHbogh} and not before it ?
My explanation is that to expect the {naDev} to be required to precede {jIHtaHbogh} is an overgeneralization of the rule that places nouns + {-Daq} and location nouns like {naDev} before the verb. In the examples from TKD and paq'batlh, {naDev} does follow the verb, so there seems to be an exception for a copula, at least for location nouns occurring with relative clauses. That the same word order occurs again in paq'batlh argues that it's not a mistake on Okrand's part. Perhaps this shouldn't be all that surprising. For instance, the OVS rule does not mean the noun preceding a copula is an object. A copula doesn't have a object; both nouns have equal grammatical weight, the difference being that the subject generally uses information the listener already knew to identify the topic (hence the topic marker), and the noun in the "object" position is new information for the listener. ~mIp'av
On Dec 19, 2016 16:25, "Ed Bailey" <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote: On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 9:07 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote: maj. however, how would you explain tkd's {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'}, and
in particular the placement of {naDev} after the {jIHtaHbogh} and not before it ?
My explanation is that to expect the {naDev} to be required to precede {jIHtaHbogh} is an overgeneralization of the rule that places nouns + {-Daq} and location nouns like {naDev} before the verb. In the examples from TKD and paq'batlh, {naDev} does follow the verb, Which example from the paq'batlh? -- De'vID
On Dec 20, 2016 19:46, "Ed Bailey" <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote: On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 1:32 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
In the examples from TKD and paq'batlh, {naDev} does follow the verb,
Which example from the paq'batlh?
paq'raD Canto 10 Stanza 24, which Brian Cole quoted in the original email: DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'. But the {naDev} does not follow the verb in that sentence. -- De'vID
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 5:41 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 20, 2016 19:46, "Ed Bailey" <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 1:32 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
In the examples from TKD and paq'batlh, {naDev} does follow the verb,
Which example from the paq'batlh?
paq'raD Canto 10 Stanza 24, which Brian Cole quoted in the original email:
DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'.
But the {naDev} does not follow the verb in that sentence.
Evidently information wasn't making it from one part of my brain to another.
Let me try to understand this... perhaps I am repeating what others already said... We all agree that {naDev jIHtaH} means 'I am here' and that {-bogh} turns it into a relative clause. So with {meq} afterwards and no {-'e'} specifying the head of the relative clause, the sentence is syntactically ambiguous between: a) 'I will tell you the reasoning of the here that I am at.' b) 'I will tell you the here which me, the reason, is being (at).' Neither of these makes immediate sense if we assume that {-bogh} works really strictly as a relativizer in the classical sense of the word. We know, in Klingon the head of the relativizer can bear other syntactic markers like {-Daq}, {-'e'}, {-vo'} and so on. But it can only relativize things that act as subject or object inside this relative clause. That is, {puq leghbogh yaSvaD ...} means 'for the officer who sees the child'. Outside the construction, the head is something like a dative or benefactive argument, marked with {-vaD}, it could also be marked as a locative or ablative, or simple with a topicalizer. Inside the construction (analyzable as {puq legh yaS}, the head {yaS} can really only be a subject, and {puq} can only be an object. It is not possible to relativize over oblique arguments and say something like 'I see the officer to whom I gave the book'. So they're quite restricted. But apparently relativization can metaphorically connect with nouns denoting facts or reasons or mental/factual things like that, like in English "The reason that I am here". It's essentially the same construction, and is not simply the same as a normal relative clause. This also works in German ("Der Grund, dass ich hier bin.") and Chinese ("我来这里的愿意。") and Thai and many other unrelated natural languages. In other words: The head of the relative clause might not actually be an argument of the relativized clause itself. Another example in English is "The day that I met your mother.", where 'day' is the head, but neither subject nor object inside the relative clause. This is called an external relative clause or an externally headed relative clause.
From this example we can assume that it also works in Klingon at least with {meq}, and perhaps there are restrictions, e.g. that the subject (and with it the verb) inside the relative clause then must be pronominal. It might be possible to say {qay'moH tlhIngan SoHbogh ngoD} for 'The fact that you are a Klingon causes problems.' - it is essentially the same construction, but it's not certain if {ngoD} 'fact' works the same as {meq} 'reason'.
Now either Marc might have simply translated the sentence a bit literal from English, and didn't notice that it is in fact a rather peculiar construction, or he did it intentionally, given the fact that many natural languages work the same way. In that way, I agree that this is a piece of new grammar, or a small addition to an existing piece of the known grammar. I'm not sure it's possible to have two full noun phrases inside the relative clause, and head it with a noun like 'fact' or 'reason'. So is ?{qay'moH tlhIngan ghaHbogh juplI' ngoD} (int.: 'The fact that your friend is a Klingon causes problems') proper Klingon? We don't know, and I have my doubts. It's at least unsafe to produce this sentence. Long story short: The sentence in question is likely an externally headed relative clause and thus a literal translation of English "the reason that I am here". This is not uncommon in natural languages, so it should not be all too surprising to find this in Klingon (though, actually I *am* surprised; I wouldn't have assumed such a construction). 2016-12-19 13:59 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
De'vID:
{naDev ghaHtaHbogh} "here where he is"
I didn't know that the {-bogh} can express "where". if that is the case, then I can understand the sentence from paq'batlh.
however I am curious..
in light of the {-bogh} being able to express the meaning of "where", how would you explain the tkd p.172 sentence: {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'} ?
"here where I am being" ? but in the {naDev ghaHtaHbogh} "here where he is" example that you wrote, the {naDev} precedes the {-bogh}..
qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 19 Dec 2016 2:30 pm, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 19, 2016 10:36, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
{naDev ghaHtaH} means "he/she is here".
Yes, I can understand this; but if at the above sentence we had the {-bogh} ({naDev ghaHtaHbogh}), then what would that mean ?
"here where he/she is"
What's difficult about this? {-bogh} turns a sentence into a relative clause.
{SuvwI' HoHpu'} "he killed the warrior" {SuvwI' HoHpu'bogh} "the warrior whom he killed"
{naDev ghaHtaH} "he is here" {naDev ghaHtaHbogh} "here where he is"
What's the difficulty? Is it that you don't accept that the location is the object of the pronoun/verb?
Consider {pa' 'oHtaH vaS'a''e'}. What role does {pa'} play relative to {'oHtaH}?
My difficulty in understanding the original paq'batlh sentence, had/has to do with accepting the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} as a noun.
{[noun] [verb][suffix]bogh} is a noun. What else could it be? This is just a standard relative clause.
If that sentence went: {DaH naDev jIHtaH meq Saja'}, then I could read it as "now, the reason of my being here, I will tell you". But the addition of {-bogh} severely messes me up. It is its presence that I can't explain.
What you wrote is ungrammatical as a single sentence. The sentence from the paq'batlh is perfectly formed according to known Klingon grammar and has a clear meaning.
-- De'vID
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Awesome. I'd assumed {naDev} was functioning purely like an adverb, and blinded myself to any other possibility apparently :/ Thanks. On Saturday, December 17, 2016, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17 December 2016 at 07:01, Brian Cote <wearetheinformation00@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
povvam <paq'batlh>Daq mu'tlheghvam 'IH vItu':
"DaH naDev jIHtaHbogh meq Saja'." /Now I will tell you why I am here./
toH, jaj naQ vIqeltaH, 'ej DaH jIghel vIneH.
'ach wa'DIch vIQIj:
"jIHtaH meq" 'oHbe'chu' mu'tlhegh lugh, 'ej "naDev jIHtaH" 'oHbej mu'tlhegh lugh, 'ach "naDev jIHtaHbogh" 'oHlaH'a' /adverb/ lugh? lughnIS, qar'a'?
You're parsing this sentence incorrectly.
{naDev} is a noun. {naDev jIHtaHbogh} is a noun. {naDev jIHtaHbogh meq} is a noun-noun construction.
Also, think about what it would mean if {naDev} were an adverbial instead of a noun. The sentence would mean *"Now, here (in this present location), I will tell you my reason for being."
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org <javascript:;> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (7)
-
André Müller -
Anthony Appleyard -
Brian Cote -
De'vID -
Ed Bailey -
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel