Any help is welcome, thank you for taking the time to reply! 1. Are there other canonical sources about stress than the ones we can find in TKD? I've been using the explanation from the Klingonska Akademien (http://klingonska.org/piqad/#stress), which contains *a bit* more information than TKD. Is this the commonly accepted way to stress words in Klingon? 2. Are these sentences correct? *ghItlhwI' 'op paq* (Some books of the writer/s) *'op ghItlhwI' paq* (The book/s of some writers) The second one *cannot* mean *Some books of the writer/s*, right? And the same goes for other similar nouns like *Hoch*, doesn't it? 3. Are ellipses like this one allowed in Klingon?: *wa'Hu' chab vISoppu', DaHjaj naH*. Or must I repeat *vISoppu'*? 4. When joining nouns with Type-5 suffixes by conjunctions, the suffixes must be repeated, right?: *be'vaD loDvaD je*, *raSDaq quSDaq ghap* etc. Is there any canonical explanation about it?
On 9/22/2021 9:48 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
Any help is welcome, thank you for taking the time to reply!
1. Are there other canonical sources about stress than the ones we can find in TKD? I've been using the explanation from the Klingonska Akademien (http://klingonska.org/piqad/#stress), which contains *a bit* more information than TKD. Is this the commonly accepted way to stress words in Klingon?
Klingonska Akademien claims to be restating the rules of TKD. What we get in TKD is, so far as I know, the only source of rules for stress in Klingon, and they're often violated when pronounced by Okrand and actors. A lot of people don't pay close attention to stress. If you follow the rules given, no one will complain. Few people will complain if you deviate from the rules, because we just don't know enough to say otherwise.
2. Are these sentences correct?
*ghItlhwI' 'op paq* (Some books of the writer/s) *'op ghItlhwI' paq* (The book/s of some writers)
The second one *cannot* mean *Some books of the writer/s*, right? And the same goes for other similar nouns like *Hoch*, doesn't it?
We don't know that. The exact rules for modifiers of noun-noun constructions, if there are any exact rules, are not clear.
3. Are ellipses like this one allowed in Klingon?: *wa'Hu' chab vISoppu', DaHjaj naH*. Or must I repeat *vISoppu'*?
We don't have a lot of guidance regarding sentence fragments. What I will say is that, colloquially, Klingons seem to use them a lot. I have no problem with your suggestion, provided it's clearly said in a colloquial setting. Don't try that sort of thing where formality would be preferred.
4. When joining nouns with Type-5 suffixes by conjunctions, the suffixes must be repeated, right?: *be'vaD loDvaD je*, *raSDaq quSDaq ghap* etc. Is there any canonical explanation about it?
Yes, each noun must have the suffix. It has been done in canon — for instance, the copyright on Skybox Cards: *Paramount Pictures malja' permey bIH Star Trek pong'e' **Deghmey'e' je.* Explanation? I don't think it has been formally explained to us, but the reason seems clear to me: each noun (phrase) being conjoined is separately a location, topic, cause, etc., and so must be separately marked. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
More examples poSDaq nIHDaq je QamtaHvIS SuvwI'pu', chaH jojDaq yItnIS lopwI' The initiate must pass through a gauntlet of warriors. (S9) loghDaq lupDujHom qoDDaq bIlengtaHvIS, nIbuQbogh novpu' DaSuv Battle menacing aliens in a shuttlecraft journey through space. (STX) tlhIngan juHqo'Daq tlhIng yoSDaq 'oH toQDuj chenmoHlu'meH Daq wa'DIch'e' 1st Construction Site: The Kling District, Klingon Home World. (KBoP) 'ej Hoch vengHomDaq Hoch vengDaq je Suchbogh ghaH qeylIS luQoy And Kahless spoke to them In every village and city he went, (PB) naDev Sughompu' yIn lutDaj'e' Hegh lutDaj'e' je [translation unavailable] (PB, paq'yav, lut cherlu') -- Voragh From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of SuStel On 9/22/2021 9:48 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de<mailto:luis.chaparro@web.de> wrote: 4. When joining nouns with Type-5 suffixes by conjunctions, the suffixes must be repeated, right?: *be'vaD loDvaD je*, *raSDaq quSDaq ghap* etc. Is there any canonical explanation about it? Yes, each noun must have the suffix. It has been done in canon — for instance, the copyright on Skybox Cards: Paramount Pictures malja' permey bIH Star Trek pong'e' Deghmey'e' je. Explanation? I don't think it has been formally explained to us, but the reason seems clear to me: each noun (phrase) being conjoined is separately a location, topic, cause, etc., and so must be separately marked.
On Sep 22, 2021, at 10:18 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 9/22/2021 9:48 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de <mailto:luis.chaparro@web.de> wrote:
... 2. Are these sentences correct?
*ghItlhwI' 'op paq* (Some books of the writer/s) *'op ghItlhwI' paq* (The book/s of some writers)
The second one *cannot* mean *Some books of the writer/s*, right? And the same goes for other similar nouns like *Hoch*, doesn't it? We don't know that. The exact rules for modifiers of noun-noun constructions, if there are any exact rules, are not clear.
Agreed. You can either guess how this might work and hope that others understand you, or you can use some other grammatical construction to convey this meaning that has clearer rules and will be more universally understood: *ghItlhwI’ ‘op paq* (Some books of the writer/s) -> {op paq’e' ghItlhta’bogh ghItlhwI’} [or] {op paq’e' ghajbogh ghItlhwI’} depending on whether you are talking about books written by or books owned by the writer/s. *’op ghItlhwI’ paq* (The book/s of some writers) -> {paq’e’ (lu-)ghItlhta’bogh ‘op ghItlhwI’} [or] {paq’e’ (lu-)ghajbogh ‘op ghItlhwI’} depending on whether you are talking about one book or plural books, and whether you are talking about books written by or owned by the writers.
3. Are ellipses like this one allowed in Klingon?: *wa'Hu' chab vISoppu', DaHjaj naH*. Or must I repeat *vISoppu'*? We don't have a lot of guidance regarding sentence fragments. What I will say is that, colloquially, Klingons seem to use them a lot. I have no problem with your suggestion, provided it's clearly said in a colloquial setting. Don't try that sort of thing where formality would be preferred.
Klingon doesn’t have a noun clause, so the elipse you suggest can’t be grammatical Klingon, but people can always say ungrammatical things and be understood. TKD doesn’t describe ungrammatical, but understandable utterances. I’ve been watching a Japanese TV series with English subtitles, Midnight Diner, on Netflix, and I’m impressed by the subtitles every time Master grunts. He nods his head in a miniature bow and grunts and the subtitles might say, “Thank you”, or “You are welcome”, or “Yes” or “I know”, or “That is acceptable,” or one of his customers might grunt and the subtitle says, “The food is delicious,” or whatever. No academic class in Japanese is ever going to teach you when to grunt and what that grunt might mean. TKD is like an academic class in speaking Klingon. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
Thank you very much SuStel, Voragh and charghwI' for your quick replies! SuStel:
Klingonska Akademien claims to be restating the rules of TKD.
I was just wondering if the information about compound nouns, adjectival verbs and nominalized verbs we find on Klingonska (but not in TKD) bases on some canonical evidence. As an aside: When TKD says *two syllables in a row* it doesn't mean *adjacent syllables*, right? And were all verbs at the beginning monosyllabic? (speaking of verbs TKD only says: *the stressed syllable is usually the verb itself*). charghwI':
We don't know that. The exact rules for modifiers of noun-noun constructions, if there are any exact rules, are not clear.
Agreed. You can either guess how this might work and hope that others understand you, or you can use some other grammatical construction to convey this meaning that has clearer rules and will be more universally understood
Ok! Just a question: The sentences I wrote (*ghItlhwI' 'op paq*, *'op ghItlhwI' paq*) are not clear, but are they grammatical? Or should I avoid such constructions? SuStel:
3. Are ellipses like this one allowed in Klingon?: *wa'Hu' chab vISoppu', DaHjaj naH*. Or must I repeat *vISoppu'*? We don't have a lot of guidance regarding sentence fragments. What I will say is that, colloquially, Klingons seem to use them a lot. I have no problem with your suggestion, provided it's clearly said in a colloquial setting. Don't try that sort of thing where formality would be preferred.
So, formally I should always repeat information (*wa'Hu' chab vISoppu', DaHjaj naH vISoppu'*) or maybe look for another word (wa'Hu' chab vISoppu', DaHjaj naH vIwIvpu'*)? charghwI':
I’ve been watching a Japanese TV series with English subtitles, Midnight Diner, on Netflix, and I’m impressed by the subtitles every time Master grunts. He nods his head in a miniature bow and grunts and the subtitles might say, “Thank you”, or “You are welcome”, or “Yes” or “I know”, or “That is acceptable,” or one of his customers might grunt and the subtitle says, “The food is delicious,” or whatever.
:-)
On 9/22/2021 12:19 PM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
I was just wondering if the information about compound nouns, adjectival verbs and nominalized verbs we find on Klingonska (but not in TKD) bases on some canonical evidence.
I haven't done more than skim the Klingonska page about these things. What does it say that TKD doesn't?
As an aside: When TKD says *two syllables in a row* it doesn't mean *adjacent syllables*, right?
Yes, that's what it means, provided the syllables are part of the same word.
And were all verbs at the beginning monosyllabic? (speaking of verbs TKD only says: *the stressed syllable is usually the verb itself*).
Unknown, but almost all verbs are monosyllabic. There are, what, only three or four exceptions?
Ok! Just a question: The sentences I wrote (*ghItlhwI' 'op paq*, *'op ghItlhwI' paq*) are not clear, but are they grammatical? Or should I avoid such constructions?
They're not sentences; they're noun phrases. They are clear, but they are not as distinct as the English translations you're giving them.
3. Are ellipses like this one allowed in Klingon?: *wa'Hu' chab vISoppu', DaHjaj naH*. Or must I repeat *vISoppu'*? We don't have a lot of guidance regarding sentence fragments. What I will say is that, colloquially, Klingons seem to use them a lot. I have no problem with your suggestion, provided it's clearly said in a colloquial setting. Don't try that sort of thing where formality would be preferred. So, formally I should always repeat information (*wa'Hu' chab vISoppu', DaHjaj naH vISoppu'*) or maybe look for another word (wa'Hu' chab vISoppu', DaHjaj naH vIwIvpu'*)?
Yes, repetition is fine in Klingon. You might include a *je* at the end of those to tie the ideas together. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
That’s right. AFAIK there are only four polysyllabic verbs known: {ghIpDIj} court martial, {He'So’} stink, {HoSghaj} be powerful, {nughI'} twist knuckle into someone's head. Hmm… perhaps “bisyllabic verbs” would be better. Did any more appear in the last two or three qep’a’mey and qepHommey? -- Voragh ________________________________________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of SuStel On 9/22/2021 12:19 PM, luis.chaparro@web.de<mailto:luis.chaparro@web.de> wrote: And were all verbs at the beginning monosyllabic? (speaking of verbs TKD only says: *the stressed syllable is usually the verb itself*). Unknown, but almost all verbs are monosyllabic. There are, what, only three or four exceptions?
On 9/22/2021 1:01 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
That’s right. AFAIK there are only four polysyllabic verbs known: {ghIpDIj} court martial, {He'So’} stink, {HoSghaj} be powerful, {nughI'} twist knuckle into someone's head. Hmm… perhaps “bisyllabic verbs” would be better. Did any more appear in the last two or three qep’a’mey and qepHommey?
*nughI'* is a term borrowed from English, so I don't count it among the "legitimate" polysyllabic verbs. qep'a' 27 gave us the slang word *Hampun*/yodel/. qepHom 17 gave us the onomatopoeias *ghughugh*/growl/ and *Qoghogh*/snort (like a pig)./ That's as far back as I'm going to look for now, but I seem to remember *Qoghogh* breaking the long dry spell of new polysyllabic verbs. And none of these appear to be normal, straightforward verbs. Oh, and don't forget *lo'laH*/be valuable,/ which I believe Okrand said isn't necessarily just *lo' + -laH.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
(st.k 11/1997): [{lo’laH}] is a simple verb in its own right (though it's an unusual two-syllable one), not the verb {lo'} “use” plus Type 5 suffix {-laH} “can”. It is likely that there is some sort of historical connection to the verb + suffix form, but, if so, it is just that -- historical. Voragh _______________________________________________________________ From: SuStel Oh, and don't forget lo'laH be valuable, which I believe Okrand said isn't necessarily just lo' + -laH. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/trimboli.name__;!!BpyFHLRN4TMTrA!rPRrcUoPSJNa4GLz7z1eDSpuq8nKTWR9Zb6BaGicKbWJ9fWKnq6qtEDrIrgv5XfWPPk$>
Am 22.09.2021 um 19:39 schrieb SuStel:
*nughI'* is a term borrowed from English, so I don't count it among the "legitimate" polysyllabic verbs.
Was that word really defined as being borrowed from English, or is that just the pun behind it? If it's only the pun on the English word, then "inside the game" I see no reason why it should not be considered a legitimate word. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/Word/NughI-
Maybe it's borrowed from English, and maybe it isn't. From my notes: (SuStel, [date?]): SuSvaj happened to be sitting next to Okrand at qep'a' wejDIch when everyone was socializing and horsing around. While someone was giving a noogie to a hapless victim, Krankor jokingly said, "We really should have a word for noogie." So SuSvaj asked Okrand, what the Klingon word for noogie was. He replied, "Well that would be {nughI'}." Asked if this was borrowed from English, he said that he was fairly certain that the English word had actually been borrowed from {tlhIngan Hol}! "He suggested that some word-borrowing was going on, and I think he said he wasn't sure which culture had borrowed from which." (ghunchu'wI', [date?]): This is one of the very few times we have had the good fortune to pin down the meaning of a word precisely. At qep'a' wejDIch, we literally got the word straight from Marc Okrand's mouth. He verified the pronunciation, spelling, and usage for us. {qanughI'} is perfectly correct for 'I give you a noogie.' {nunughI'} is a valid word. […] It's obviously a borrowed term. Okrand expressed uncertainty about whether the Klingon word was borrowed from English, or whether it was the other way around. -- Voragh -----------------------------------Original Message----------------------------------- From: Lieven L. Litaer Am 22.09.2021 um 19:39 schrieb SuStel:
*nughI'* is a term borrowed from English, so I don't count it among the "legitimate" polysyllabic verbs.
Was that word really defined as being borrowed from English, or is that just the pun behind it? If it's only the pun on the English word, then "inside the game" I see no reason why it should not be considered a legitimate word. http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 9/22/2021 3:18 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
Maybe it's borrowed from English, and maybe it isn't. From my notes:
(SuStel, [date?]): SuSvaj happened to be sitting next to Okrand at qep'a' wejDIch when everyone was socializing and horsing around. While someone was giving a noogie to a hapless victim, Krankor jokingly said, "We really should have a word for noogie." So SuSvaj asked Okrand, what the Klingon word for noogie was. He replied, "Well that would be {nughI'}." Asked if this was borrowed from English, he said that he was fairly certain that the English word had actually been borrowed from {tlhIngan Hol}! "He suggested that some word-borrowing was going on, and I think he said he wasn't sure which culture had borrowed from which."
(ghunchu'wI', [date?]): This is one of the very few times we have had the good fortune to pin down the meaning of a word precisely. At qep'a' wejDIch, we literally got the word straight from Marc Okrand's mouth. He verified the pronunciation, spelling, and usage for us. {qanughI'} is perfectly correct for 'I give you a noogie.' {nunughI'} is a valid word. […] It's obviously a borrowed term. Okrand expressed uncertainty about whether the Klingon word was borrowed from English, or whether it was the other way around.
Ah, good, I'd forgotten about the possibility of it being the other way around. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Another note was that Okrand pointed out that the act of {nughI’} is as painful to the person doing it (because of the ridges on the forehead) as for the recipient, suggesting that this increases the delight of both parties, similar to the head butting. Klingons don’t so much avoid pain as relish it in social gatherings.
On Sep 22, 2021, at 3:18 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Maybe it's borrowed from English, and maybe it isn't. From my notes:
(SuStel, [date?]): SuSvaj happened to be sitting next to Okrand at qep'a' wejDIch when everyone was socializing and horsing around. While someone was giving a noogie to a hapless victim, Krankor jokingly said, "We really should have a word for noogie." So SuSvaj asked Okrand, what the Klingon word for noogie was. He replied, "Well that would be {nughI'}." Asked if this was borrowed from English, he said that he was fairly certain that the English word had actually been borrowed from {tlhIngan Hol}! "He suggested that some word-borrowing was going on, and I think he said he wasn't sure which culture had borrowed from which."
(ghunchu'wI', [date?]): This is one of the very few times we have had the good fortune to pin down the meaning of a word precisely. At qep'a' wejDIch, we literally got the word straight from Marc Okrand's mouth. He verified the pronunciation, spelling, and usage for us. {qanughI'} is perfectly correct for 'I give you a noogie.' {nunughI'} is a valid word. […] It's obviously a borrowed term. Okrand expressed uncertainty about whether the Klingon word was borrowed from English, or whether it was the other way around.
-- Voragh
-----------------------------------Original Message----------------------------------- From: Lieven L. Litaer
Am 22.09.2021 um 19:39 schrieb SuStel:
*nughI'* is a term borrowed from English, so I don't count it among the "legitimate" polysyllabic verbs.
Was that word really defined as being borrowed from English, or is that just the pun behind it? If it's only the pun on the English word, then "inside the game" I see no reason why it should not be considered a legitimate word.
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
Am 22.09.2021 um 19:01 schrieb Steven Boozer:
That’s right. AFAIK there are only four polysyllabic verbs known: {ghIpDIj} court martial, {He'So’} stink, {HoSghaj} be powerful, {nughI'} twist knuckle into someone's head. Hmm… perhaps “bisyllabic verbs” would be better. Did any more appear in the last two or three qep’a’mey and qepHommey?
I have compiled a list of these words in the Wiki: http://klingon.wiki/En/MultisyllabicVerbs As a side topic: Is there a difference between "multisyllabic" and "polysyllabic"? -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany"
On 9/22/2021 3:12 PM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
As a side topic: Is there a difference between "multisyllabic" and "polysyllabic"?
I believe they're synonymous. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
As I suggested earlier, since all known examples have two syllables why not just call them "bisyllabic "? "A Klingon may be inaccurate, but he is never approximate." (CK) Voragh -----------------------------------Original Message----------------------------------- From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of SuStel On 9/22/2021 3:12 PM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
As a side topic: Is there a difference between "multisyllabic" and "polysyllabic"?
I believe they're synonymous.
Thank you SuStel, Voragh and Lieven L. Litaer for the very interesting posts! I've learnt a lot, for example, now I know what *noogie* means in English :-) SuStel:
I haven't done more than skim the Klingonska page about these things. What does it say that TKD doesn't?
As I understand it, these informations aren't *directly* stated in TKD: - *Adjectival verbs are stressed as verbs.* - *Nominalized verbs (nouns created using suffixes /-wI'/ and /-ghach/) are stressed as nouns.* - *in compound nouns, only the last syllable of the /last stem/ is stressed* - And speaking of verbs, *the last syllable of the stem is stressed* (that's why I asked about monosyllabic verbs).
As an aside: When TKD says *two syllables in a row* it doesn't mean *adjacent syllables*, right? Yes, that's what it means, provided the syllables are part of the same word. Ok, I'm asking because on Klingonska we read about nouns that */If there are syllables ending in glottal stop,/ those are stressed (and stressed equally).* So *in a row* doesn't mean one inmediately after the other, does it? (maybe I'm having problems with my English here). I mean, *Ha'DIbaHmo'* is stressed on *Ha'* and on *mo'*, right?
Unknown, but almost all verbs are monosyllabic. There are, what, only three or four exceptions?
I'm wondering now if the verbs *He'So'* or *lo'laH* are stressed, as Klingonska says, on the last syllable of the stem?
Ok! Just a question: The sentences I wrote (*ghItlhwI' 'op paq*, *'op ghItlhwI' paq*) are not clear, but are they grammatical? Or should I avoid such constructions? They're not sentences; they're noun phrases. They are clear, but they are not as distinct as the English translations you're giving them.
Yes, of course, sorry! I meant noun phrases. So, as I understand it: the exact rules for modifiers of noun-noun-constructions are not clear, but my noun phrases aren't ungrammatical and, if context is clear, I can use them. Anyway, *ghItlhwI' 'op paq* cannot mean *the book/s of some writers*. For that, the *'op* should go before the *ghItlhwI'*. At least, that's clear, right?
So, formally I should always repeat information (*wa'Hu' chab vISoppu', DaHjaj naH vISoppu'*) or maybe look for another word (wa'Hu' chab vISoppu', DaHjaj naH vIwIvpu'*)? Yes, repetition is fine in Klingon. You might include a je at the end of those to tie the ideas together.
Sorry, I don't understand exactly what you mean with including a *je* (*je* meaning *too*?). Thank you!
On 9/22/2021 4:34 PM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
SuStel:
I haven't done more than skim the Klingonska page about these things. What does it say that TKD doesn't? As I understand it, these informations aren't*directly* stated in TKD:
- *Adjectival verbs are stressed as verbs.*
Adjectival verbs are just verbs, so this doesn't say anything we didn't already know.
- *Nominalized verbs (nouns created using suffixes /-wI'/ and /-ghach/) are stressed as nouns.*
"A noun formed by adding *-wI'* to a verb is a regular noun." So this also doesn't say anything we weren't already told. I agree that the case for *-ghach* is a little less explicit, since it was part of the addendum and not included in the ways to create complex nouns, but a verb ending in *-ghach* is clearly a complex noun in the same way that a verb ending in *-wI'* is a complex noun. However, since *-ghach* has no glottal stop to draw stress, and since by definition a word with *-ghach* /must**/have at least two syllables before the *-ghach,* I agree that the question of how to stress it may become important. I don't know if the Klingonska page says anything specifically about this in the case of *-ghach.*
-*in compound nouns, only the last syllable of the /last stem/ is stressed*
I agree that TKD doesn't clearly state that its noun stress rules apply only to simple nouns. On the other hand, the exact definition of /simple noun/ is not entirely clear to me. The examples given are monosyllabic, and section 3.2.3 says that many polysyllabic nouns in Klingon are complex nouns that aren't necessarily compound nouns, and have elements that can't be analyzed. The given example is *'ejDo',* and it is theorized that *Do'* was an Old Klingon word for /space vessel./ So, can we say that *Ha'DIbaH,* for example, is a simple noun? What if it consists of older elements that we can no longer analyze? That would make it a complex noun. And if a word like *Ha'DIbaH* is a complex noun, but if we're supposed to understand that the stress rules apply to it, then we must assume the stress rules apply to complex nouns generally, and that includes compound nouns.
- And speaking of verbs,*the last syllable of the stem is stressed* (that's why I asked about monosyllabic verbs).
The stress rules are clearly talking about monosyllabic verb stems, which is nearly all of them. If the Klingonska page says that the last syllable of the stem of polysyllabic verbs is stressed, I see no source for this information.
As an aside: When TKD says*two syllables in a row* it doesn't mean*adjacent syllables*, right? Yes, that's what it means, provided the syllables are part of the same word.
Ok, I'm asking because on Klingonska we read about nouns that */If there are syllables ending in glottal stop,/ those are stressed (and stressed equally).* So*in a row* doesn't mean one inmediately after the other, does it? (maybe I'm having problems with my English here). I mean, *Ha'DIbaHmo'* is stressed on *Ha'* and on *mo'*, right?
"Two syllables in a row" means two syllables next to each other. TKD does not tell us what to do in the case of two syllables having a glottal stop that aren't in a row. For that, I fall back to the general rule, "if, however, a syllable ending in *'* is present, it is usually stressed instead." Since that would lead to two equally stressed syllables, that would mean either the "in a row" is meaningless, that both syllables are stressed but one is stressed more than the other (and we're not told which is which), or that something else entirely happens in this case and we're not told what.
Unknown, but almost all verbs are monosyllabic. There are, what, only three or four exceptions? I'm wondering now if the verbs*He'So'* or *lo'laH* are stressed, as Klingonska says, on the last syllable of the stem?
Personally, I stress both syllables of *He'So'* and the *lo'* in *lo'laH.*
Ok! Just a question: The sentences I wrote (*ghItlhwI' 'op paq*, *'op ghItlhwI' paq*) are not clear, but are they grammatical? Or should I avoid such constructions? They're not sentences; they're noun phrases. They are clear, but they are not as distinct as the English translations you're giving them. Yes, of course, sorry! I meant noun phrases. So, as I understand it: the exact rules for modifiers of noun-noun-constructions are not clear, but my noun phrases aren't ungrammatical
They aren't clearly ungrammatical. As I said, we have limited information on words like this modifying noun-noun constructions.
and, if context is clear, I can use them.
No one can claim they're wrong and prove it.
Anyway,*ghItlhwI' 'op paq* cannot mean*the book/s of some writers*. For that, the *'op* should go before the *ghItlhwI'*. At least, that's clear, right?
Yes.
So, formally I should always repeat information (*wa'Hu' chab vISoppu', DaHjaj naH vISoppu'*) or maybe look for another word (wa'Hu' chab vISoppu', DaHjaj naH vIwIvpu'*)? Yes, repetition is fine in Klingon. You might include a je at the end of those to tie the ideas together. Sorry, I don't understand exactly what you mean with including a*je* (*je* meaning*too*?).
*wa'Hu' chab vISoppu'; DaHjaj naH vISoppu' je.* /I ate pie yesterday. I also ate vegetables today./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Thank you for your exhaustive analysis, SuStel!
I agree that the case for -ghach is a little less explicit, since it was part of the addendum and not included in the ways to create complex nouns, but a verb ending in -ghach is clearly a complex noun in the same way that a verb ending in -wI' is a complex noun. However, since -ghach has no glottal stop to draw stress, and since by definition a word with -ghach must have at least two syllables before the -ghach, I agree that the question of how to stress it may become important. I don't know if the Klingonska page says anything specifically about this in the case of -ghach.
I haven't found anything more about *-ghach* on the Klingonska Akademien website, but I knew I had read something about all of this this somewhere, and I've found it in the *Appendix II: Notes on the Scansion of /Khamlet/* of *The Klingon Hamlet*. Maybe the Klingonska Akademien website (and by the way, also the *Hol 'ampaS* site of the KAG) is based on this notes?
"Two syllables in a row" means two syllables next to each other. TKD does not tell us what to do in the case of two syllables having a glottal stop that aren't in a row. For that, I fall back to the general rule, "if, however, a syllable ending in ' is present, it is usually stressed instead." Since that would lead to two equally stressed syllables, that would mean either the "in a row" is meaningless, that both syllables are stressed but one is stressed more than the other (and we're not told which is which), or that something else entirely happens in this case and we're not told what.
Looking at the general rule *if, however, a syllable ending in ' is present, it is usually stressed instead* I hope I don't do anything that bad if I stress both *Ha'* and *mo'* in *Ha'DIbaHmo'*, regardless what happens with syllables in a row :-)
So, formally I should always repeat information (*wa'Hu' chab vISoppu', DaHjaj naH vISoppu'*) or maybe look for another word (wa'Hu' chab vISoppu', DaHjaj naH vIwIvpu'*)? Yes, repetition is fine in Klingon. You might include a je at the end of those to tie the ideas together. Sorry, I don't understand exactly what you mean with including a *je* (*je* meaning *too*?). wa'Hu' chab vISoppu'; DaHjaj naH vISoppu' je. I ate pie yesterday. I also ate vegetables today.
Maybe I understand it wrong in English, but doesn't *I also ate vegetables today* mean, that today I ate a pie *and* vegetables? Actually, I was trying to say: "Yesterday I ate a pie. Today I ate vegetables / fruit", i.e., I didn't eat a pie today, but vegetables / fruit.
participants (5)
-
Lieven L. Litaer -
luis.chaparro＠web.de -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin