Re: [tlhIngan Hol] {neH} after {-logh} or {ben}
Someone used {wa'logh neH} and I thought it was strange because {neH} is following an adverbial. While I understood it perfectly, AFAIK it can't do that, although one could argue that {wa'} is a number and hence a noun, and {neH} is modifying {wa'}, and {-logh} just happens to be tacked on to {wa'}. Would others accept it? I wondered if this question had already been asked on the mailing list, and lo and behold, I myself had asked this question in 2013: On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 at 07:23, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
We know that {neH} can follow verbs or nouns. Can it follow a number suffixed with {-logh}?
For example, {wa'logh neH qIp}. This is different than {wa'logh qIp neH}, which trivialises the hitting.
What about {ben} or other time elements, which are nouns? Would you understand {cha' ben neH qalegh}? Or does it have to be {cha' neH ben qalegh}?
The only reply at the time was Voragh, who responded with a list of canon usages of {neH}, none of which have {neH} following a number or an adverbial.
-- De'vID
In all the examples I know of {neH} follows a noun or a verb. I checked my files for additional examples revealed since July 2013 but couldn’t find any. (Which may only mean that I didn’t record it if it taught us nothing new. In recent years I’ve been a bit overwhelmed by all the new material – or maybe it’s just laziness.) -- Voragh ________________________________________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of De'vID Someone used {wa'logh neH} and I thought it was strange because {neH} is following an adverbial. While I understood it perfectly, AFAIK it can't do that, although one could argue that {wa'} is a number and hence a noun, and {neH} is modifying {wa'}, and {-logh} just happens to be tacked on to {wa'}. Would others accept it? I wondered if this question had already been asked on the mailing list, and lo and behold, I myself had asked this question in 2013: On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 at 07:23, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com<mailto:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>> wrote: We know that {neH} can follow verbs or nouns. Can it follow a number suffixed with {-logh}? For example, {wa'logh neH qIp}. This is different than {wa'logh qIp neH}, which trivialises the hitting. What about {ben} or other time elements, which are nouns? Would you understand {cha' ben neH qalegh}? Or does it have to be {cha' neH ben qalegh}? The only reply at the time was Voragh, who responded with a list of canon usages of {neH}, none of which have {neH} following a number or an adverbial. -- De'vID
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 15:56, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
In all the examples I know of {neH} follows a noun or a verb. I checked my files for additional examples revealed since July 2013 but couldn’t find any. (Which may only mean that I didn’t record it if it taught us nothing new. In recent years I’ve been a bit overwhelmed by all the new material – or maybe it’s just laziness.)
I know there's no canon to support it. I'm still interested in people's *opinions* of a construction like {cha'logh neH} though. Would they accept it? Would they use it? Usually, people are quite opinionated on this list on questions like this, so I'm a bit surprised people haven't weighed in on this one. (Maybe it's because I'm not mayqel qunen'oS.) -- De'vID
Am 04.02.2020 um 08:04 schrieb De'vID:> Usually, people are quite opinionated on this list on questions like
this, so I'm a bit surprised people haven't weighed in on this one. (Maybe it's because I'm not mayqel qunen'oS.)
Or maybe it's because I need to say something first so that SuStel can disagree. ;-) :-P -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/Word/NeH
De'vID:
I know there's no canon to support it. I'm still interested in people's *opinions* of a construction like {cha'logh neH} though. Would they accept it? Would they use it?
I think some time ago (quite some time ago..), I had the same question too. If I remember correctly, the matter was discussed, but again, no definite answer could be produced, since there's no Ca'Non to actually support (or reject it). Now, if you're interested in my personal opinion (although I don't think that my opinion carries any weight) .. I'd definitely understand in a heartbeat the meaning of something like {wa'logh neH vIghro' tIQ vI'uchpu'}. But, I wouldn't use such a construction in a formal setting, since there's no Ca'Non, which actually allows it. I'd find other ways around this problem, such as: {wa'logh vIghro' tIQ vI'uchpu', 'ej ghIq not Sarvam vighro' vI'uchqa'pu'}. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On Feb 4, 2020, at 01:05, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm still interested in people's *opinions* of a construction like {cha'logh neH} though. Would they accept it? Would they use it?
I use this construction from time to time without thinking about it, usually followed by a realization that I don’t actually know if I can use it. I would accept it if somebody else used it, though I am fairly permissive and accept many things which I know not to be supported by canon.
On 2/4/2020 8:59 AM, Hugh Son puqloD wrote:
On Feb 4, 2020, at 01:05, De'vID<de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm still interested in people's*opinions* of a construction like {cha'logh neH} though. Would they accept it? Would they use it? I use this construction from time to time without thinking about it, usually followed by a realization that I don’t actually know if I can use it. I would accept it if somebody else used it, though I am fairly permissive and accept many things which I know not to be supported by canon.
If I were just a reader coming across this, I would silently acknowledge it to myself and move on. If I were an editor for something that was trying to be formally correct, I would ask the author to reword it to avoid uncertain grammar. If I were an editor for something that wasn't trying to be formally correct and needed the *neH* there for metrical or other reasons, I would let it pass. If I were an editor for something that wasn't trying to be formally correct but didn't need the *neH* to be there for those reasons, I would ask the author to reword it to avoid uncertain grammar. As a writer, I would follow those same guidelines. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 2:04 AM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
I know there's no canon to support it. I'm still interested in people's *opinions* of a construction like {cha'logh neH} though. Would they accept it? Would they use it?
Until Maltz weighs in one way or the other, I'd probably accept it in casual conversation as a sort of naturally-developed colloquialism. (By "naturally-developed", I mean MO didn't invent it specifically as an example of colloquial speech, it just came up from the way Klingonists use the language.)
participants (7)
-
De'vID -
Hugh Son puqloD -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel