verb prefix when the object noun is topicalized by {-'e'} and precedes the adverb
It may seem weird to be asking this now, after six years, but I just started to wonder about this. According to tkd "The adverbial may actually follow the object noun (but still precede the verb) when the object noun is topicalized by means of the noun suffix {-'e'}". And then we have the Ca'Non example of {HaqwI' 'e' DaH yISam} "Find the SURGEON now!" Suppose now that we want to say "attack the ROMULANS now!" romuluSnganpu''e' DaH yIHIv romuluSnganpu''e' DaH tIHIv Do we say {romuluSnganpu''e' DaH yIHIv}, or do we say {romuluSnganpu''e' DaH tIHIv}? It seems strange having a prefix indicating that the verb has an object, but not seeing that object directly in front of the verb. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
It seems strange because it is strange, but then, language is strange. The object is still the object, even if it is emphasized/topicalized. {romuluSnganpu’’e’ DaH tIHIv!}, though it’s likely a common error to use {yI-} simply because it is used more often and non-Klingons easily forget that {tI-} is a prefix. The confusing thing about {-‘e’} is that it can be used on a noun that already has another grammatical function defined by position, or it can tag on a noun at the beginning of a sentence that isn’t the object, so that {-‘e’} defines the function of the noun in the sentence. {SuvwI’pu’’e’ SoH yoH law’ Hoch yoH puS.} In this, {SuvwI’pu’} has no grammatical function in the sentence except for defining the topic. On the topic of soldiers, you are the bravest. A woman giving birth might be braver, or that citizen who stood in front of that tank and shook his fist at it might be braver, but if you ignore anybody who isn’t a soldier, you are the most brave. But in your example, {romuluSnganpu’} is not merely the topic. It is definitely the object of the verb. Otherwise, you are saying, “On the topic of Romulans, attack now!} You could say that if you meant that there were a crowd of people of many races, and you want everyone to ignore you except the Romulans, and you want THEM to attack NOW! You are only commanding Romulans. It’s the difference between “Attack the Romulans NOW!” And “Hey, Romulans! Attack NOW!" But that’s only one interpretation. It’s actually more confusing than that because you are merely stating that the Romulans are the topic, then you are telling some unspecified subject to attack some unspecified object. See the problem here? pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Jan 19, 2022, at 7:37 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
It may seem weird to be asking this now, after six years, but I just started to wonder about this.
According to tkd "The adverbial may actually follow the object noun (but still precede the verb) when the object noun is topicalized by means of the noun suffix {-'e'}". And then we have the Ca'Non example of {HaqwI' 'e' DaH yISam} "Find the SURGEON now!"
Suppose now that we want to say "attack the ROMULANS now!"
romuluSnganpu''e' DaH yIHIv romuluSnganpu''e' DaH tIHIv
Do we say {romuluSnganpu''e' DaH yIHIv}, or do we say {romuluSnganpu''e' DaH tIHIv}?
It seems strange having a prefix indicating that the verb has an object, but not seeing that object directly in front of the verb.
-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
charghwI':
But that’s only one interpretation. It’s actually more confusing than that because you are merely stating that the Romulans are the topic, then you are telling some unspecified subject to attack some unspecified object. See the problem here?
Yes, I think I do. Initially I thought that perhaps the correct option would be {romuluSnganpu''e' DaH yIHIv}, because I interpreted it as "The Romulans! Attack now!". But then I noticed that in tkd it says "The adverbial may actually follow the object noun (but still precede the verb) when the object noun is topicalized by means of the noun suffix {-'e'}". So I started to wonder, "since tkd says 'object noun' then we obviously need to have a prefix on the verb which indicates the existence of that object". Thus the confusion started. Anyway, if I understand correctly, the correct option is {romuluSnganpu''e' DaH tIHIv}. So I guess I'll just have to force myself to grow accustomed to seeing the object separated from its' verb by an adverb. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
I’ve always interpreted the wording of this section to be carefully intentional. I’ll add emphasis: “The adverbial MAY actually follow the object noun…" That doesn’t suggest that it has to. My personal interpretation of this is that there could be a subtle layering of emphasis: DaH HaqwI’ yISam! Find the surgeon now! (Simple command) DaH HaqwI’’e’ yISam! Find the SURGEON now! (Emphasis on what you need to find) HaqwI’’e’ DaH yISam! THE SURGEON! FIND THE SURGEON NOW! (I’m talking to you about a surgeon. It’s all about the surgeon. Think surgeon. Not plumber. Not gunner. Surgeon. Surgeon, surgeon, surgeon. Find the friggin’ surgeon NOW. The next layer of emphasis would be to clip it: HaqwI’’e’ Sam! (Typically, a line delivered with a disruptor pointed between your eyes.) pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Jan 19, 2022, at 8:48 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
charghwI':
But that’s only one interpretation. It’s actually more confusing than that because you are merely stating that the Romulans are the topic, then you are telling some unspecified subject to attack some unspecified object. See the problem here?
Yes, I think I do.
Initially I thought that perhaps the correct option would be {romuluSnganpu''e' DaH yIHIv}, because I interpreted it as "The Romulans! Attack now!".
But then I noticed that in tkd it says "The adverbial may actually follow the object noun (but still precede the verb) when the object noun is topicalized by means of the noun suffix {-'e'}".
So I started to wonder, "since tkd says 'object noun' then we obviously need to have a prefix on the verb which indicates the existence of that object". Thus the confusion started.
Anyway, if I understand correctly, the correct option is {romuluSnganpu''e' DaH tIHIv}. So I guess I'll just have to force myself to grow accustomed to seeing the object separated from its' verb by an adverb.
-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 1/19/2022 9:49 AM, Will Martin wrote:
I’ve always interpreted the wording of this section to be carefully intentional. I’ll add emphasis:
“The adverbial MAY actually follow the object noun…"
That doesn’t suggest that it has to.
My personal interpretation of this is that there could be a subtle layering of emphasis:
DaH HaqwI’ yISam! Find the surgeon now! (Simple command)
DaH HaqwI’’e’ yISam! Find the SURGEON now! (Emphasis on what you need to find)
HaqwI’’e’ DaH yISam! THE SURGEON! FIND THE SURGEON NOW! (I’m talking to you about a surgeon. It’s all about the surgeon. Think surgeon. Not plumber. Not gunner. Surgeon. Surgeon, surgeon, surgeon. Find the friggin’ surgeon NOW.
The next layer of emphasis would be to clip it:
HaqwI’’e’ Sam! (Typically, a line delivered with a disruptor pointed between your eyes.)
I think you're misreading the /may./ It doesn't mean "the adverbial might follow the object noun, but it doesn't have to." It means "despite the normal order of adverbials before the object, there is a special circumstance where the object may come first." Both forms emphasize the surgeon as the focus. The version with the fronted object is more emphatic, not because your need for the surgeon is more acute, but because you've isolated the noun by fronting it. It's the difference between /Find the SURGEON now!/ and /The SURGEON! Find him/her now!/ I think it's no coincidence that the version with the fronted object is exactly identical to a sentence with the surgeon as a topic with no other grammatical role. There's basically no difference between that and saying /As for the surgeon, find him/her now!/ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I think you may be misreading my misreading of “may”. What you say sounds like what I meant.
On Jan 19, 2022, at 10:03 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 1/19/2022 9:49 AM, Will Martin wrote:
I’ve always interpreted the wording of this section to be carefully intentional. I’ll add emphasis:
“The adverbial MAY actually follow the object noun…"
That doesn’t suggest that it has to.
My personal interpretation of this is that there could be a subtle layering of emphasis:
DaH HaqwI’ yISam! Find the surgeon now! (Simple command)
DaH HaqwI’’e’ yISam! Find the SURGEON now! (Emphasis on what you need to find)
HaqwI’’e’ DaH yISam! THE SURGEON! FIND THE SURGEON NOW! (I’m talking to you about a surgeon. It’s all about the surgeon. Think surgeon. Not plumber. Not gunner. Surgeon. Surgeon, surgeon, surgeon. Find the friggin’ surgeon NOW.
The next layer of emphasis would be to clip it:
HaqwI’’e’ Sam! (Typically, a line delivered with a disruptor pointed between your eyes.) I think you're misreading the may. It doesn't mean "the adverbial might follow the object noun, but it doesn't have to." It means "despite the normal order of adverbials before the object, there is a special circumstance where the object may come first."
Both forms emphasize the surgeon as the focus. The version with the fronted object is more emphatic, not because your need for the surgeon is more acute, but because you've isolated the noun by fronting it.
It's the difference between
Find the SURGEON now!
and
The SURGEON! Find him/her now!
I think it's no coincidence that the version with the fronted object is exactly identical to a sentence with the surgeon as a topic with no other grammatical role. There's basically no difference between that and saying As for the surgeon, find him/her now!
-- 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
Am 19.01.2022 um 13:37 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
Do we say {romuluSnganpu''e' DaH yIHIv}, or do we say {romuluSnganpu''e' DaH tIHIv}?
Of course, the prefix has to accomodate its object, so it surely is {romuluSnganpu'e' DaH tIHIv}.
It seems strange having a prefix indicating that the verb has an object, but not seeing that object directly in front of the verb.
It might look strange, but the verb does not always need to have its object directly in front of it. This can happen very often, especially when you have two sentences: {qagh vIvut. nom yISop.} -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/En/AliceInWonderland
On 1/19/2022 12:47 PM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 19.01.2022 um 13:37 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
Do we say {romuluSnganpu''e' DaH yIHIv}, or do we say {romuluSnganpu''e' DaH tIHIv}?
Of course, the prefix has to accomodate its object, so it surely is {romuluSnganpu'e' DaH tIHIv}.
It seems strange having a prefix indicating that the verb has an object, but not seeing that object directly in front of the verb.
It might look strange, but the verb does not always need to have its object directly in front of it. This can happen very often, especially when you have two sentences:
{qagh vIvut. nom yISop.}
The object of *Sop* in that sentence is *'oH.* It has been elided as allowed. It looks like the *yI-* is agreeing with the *qagh,* but really it's agreeing with the pronoun whose antecedent is *qagh.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
lieven:
Of course, the prefix has to accomodate its object, so it surely is {romuluSnganpu'e' DaH tIHIv}.
Thanks for taking the time to reply! lieven:
{qagh vIvut. nom yISop.} SuStel: The object of Sop in that sentence is 'oH. It has been elided as allowed. It looks like the yI- is agreeing with the qagh, but really it's agreeing with the pronoun whose antecedent is qagh.
I hadn't realized that! So in the {romuluSnganpu'e' DaH tIHIv} the object of {tIHIv} isn't the {romuluSnganpu'}, but rather an elided {chaH}. But then why does tkd that "The adverbial may actually follow the object noun (but still precede the verb) when the object noun is topicalized by means of the noun suffix {-'e'}", if in the tkd example the object of {yI-} isn't the {HaqwI'} but rather an elided {ghaH}? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 1/19/2022 2:13 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
lieven:
Of course, the prefix has to accomodate its object, so it surely is {romuluSnganpu'e' DaH tIHIv}.
Thanks for taking the time to reply!
lieven:
{qagh vIvut. nom yISop.} SuStel: The object of Sop in that sentence is 'oH. It has been elided as allowed. It looks like the yI- is agreeing with the qagh, but really it's agreeing with the pronoun whose antecedent is qagh.
I hadn't realized that! So in the {romuluSnganpu'e' DaH tIHIv} the object of {tIHIv} isn't the {romuluSnganpu'}, but rather an elided {chaH}.
Nonono. In Lieven's example two sentences, the object of the second sentence is an elided *'oH.* In *romuluSnganpu''e' DaH tIHIv,* the object of the verb is *romuluSnganpu''e'.* It's just been moved to the front of the sentence for emphasis. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
Nonono. In Lieven's example two sentences, the object of the second sentence is an elided 'oH. In romuluSnganpu''e' DaH tIHIv, the object of the verb is romuluSnganpu''e'. It's just been moved to the front of the sentence for emphasis.
Ok, now I understand. Thanks! -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
participants (4)
-
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin