[KLBC] Can you use several adjective-verbs for the same noun?
Savan! I have a new question today / DaHjaj De’chu’ SagheltaH. Looking at the TKD’s adjective section, I could see that all the examples only have 1 adjective per noun. So what happens if you want to describe something which has several attributes within a sentence? For example, in the sentence: “I see a young, tall and bold officer”. Is there a canon reference somewhere listing several adjectives linked to the same noun? As in: “yaS Qup woch jaq vIlegh” Or, in those cases, would the most grammatically correct option be to use relative clauses for each attribute, and using only 1 adjective after the noun? Like this: “jaqbogh ‘ej wochbogh yaS Qup vIlegh” And, would it then be possible to use “but” in between as in “I see a young, tall, bold but crazy officer”? “jaqbogh ‘ach maw’bogh ‘ej wochbogh yaS Qup vIlegh” Satlho’! :) Aurélie aka mughwI'
The BG should be the first to answer grammatical questions, but anything else is okay, so... Am 29.09.2016 um 15:23 schrieb Aurélie Demonchaux:
Savan!
Your message marked as KLBC is directed to one person only, so it may be more correct to say {qavan}, but that's really nitpicking ;-) What I actually wanted to say is that you speak so much Klingon already, that you are not a true "beginner". And regarding your question, you already answered it yourself - but I'll let the BG tell you why.
Or, in those cases, would the most grammatically correct option be to use relative clauses for each attribute, and using only 1 adjective after the noun? Like this:
“jaqbogh ‘ej wochbogh yaS Qup vIlegh”
And, would it then be possible to use “but” in between as in “I see a young, tall, bold but crazy officer”?
“jaqbogh ‘ach maw’bogh ‘ej wochbogh yaS Qup vIlegh”
PS: if possible, deactivate autoformatting for apostrophes. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Apostrophe
Lieven:
And regarding your question, you already answered it yourself - but I'll let the BG tell you why.
Aurélie Demonchaux:
Is there a canon reference somewhere listing several adjectives linked to the same noun? As in:
While we're waiting for the BG here are the references you requested: romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI' Romulan hunter-killer probe (KCD) SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh The tea that is {SuD} and light. (KGT) (i.e. light green tea) Suto'vo'qor botlhDaq pe'vIl joqchu'taH quvbogh 'ej valbogh tIqDu' tIQ [translation unavailable] (PB) This last example is controversial so I wouldn't advise using it: yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI' Say'moHchu' may' 'Iw The blood of battle washes clean the warrior brave and true. (Anthem) It's the only known example of the pattern {X-bogh Y-bogh je NOUN} -- possibly because it's a song lyric and the translation had to fit the meter. -- Voragh tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a' Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
Hi all -- Lieven: "And regarding your question, you already answered it yourself - but I'll let the BG tell you why." Actually I don't know why, other than that's how people do it. Maybe because it starts to produce parsing errors? mughwI': “jaqbogh ‘ach maw’bogh ‘ej wochbogh yaS Qup vIlegh.” I think this is alright but why do it that way? -> Consider: {{yaS Qup vIlegh. jaq, woch... 'ach maw'qu'!}} 'arHa -- Socialist Alternative <http://www.socialistalternative.org/> Klingon Language Institute <http://www.kli.org/> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Lieven:
And regarding your question, you already answered it yourself - but I'll let the BG tell you why.
Aurélie Demonchaux:
Is there a canon reference somewhere listing several adjectives linked to the same noun? As in:
While we're waiting for the BG here are the references you requested:
romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI' Romulan hunter-killer probe (KCD)
SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh The tea that is {SuD} and light. (KGT) (i.e. light green tea)
Suto'vo'qor botlhDaq pe'vIl joqchu'taH quvbogh 'ej valbogh tIqDu' tIQ [translation unavailable] (PB)
This last example is controversial so I wouldn't advise using it:
yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI' Say'moHchu' may' 'Iw The blood of battle washes clean the warrior brave and true. (Anthem)
It's the only known example of the pattern {X-bogh Y-bogh je NOUN} -- possibly because it's a song lyric and the translation had to fit the meter.
-- Voragh tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a' Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Thanks all for your reply! (Hoch tujangta’mo’ qatlho’!) *@**Quvar valer 'utlh*
Savan!
Your message marked as KLBC is directed to one person only, so it may be more correct to say {qavan}, but that's really nitpicking ;-)
jIyaj, Dochmey mach jISaH je!
What I actually wanted to say is that you speak so much Klingon already, that you are not a true "beginner".
qatlho’ :) ’ach Dochmey law’ tu’lu’ ’e’ wej vIghojta’.
PS: if possible, deactivate autoformatting for apostrophes.
qaghwI' vIvevmo’, DaH <Alt + 0146> vIlo’ ’e’ vIwaH. *@Voragh:* qu’! pab lo’mey cho’aghta’mo’ qatlho’ :) *@’arHa:*
“jaqbogh ’ach maw’bogh ’ej wochbogh yaS Qup vIlegh.” I think this is alright but why do it that way? -> Consider: {{yaS Qup vIlegh. jaq, woch... 'ach maw'qu'!}}
Yes it makes sense too. But in this case, wouldn’t it shift the focus of the text? 1/ “jaqbogh ’ach maw’bogh ’ej wochbogh yaS Qup vIlegh” I feel that here the focus of the sentence is more on the description of the officer that I’m seeing, with his 1st three attributes <jaq>, <maw’>, <woch> on an equal footing, and <Qup> being considered the most essential attribute, since it’s directly added after <yaS>. We can show the highlight as below: <I see a *young officer*, (who is) tall, bold but crazy.> The way I interpret things (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that, in Klingon, if we put a normal adjective just after the noun, then it would be considered as the noun’s main / defining attribute, and the relative clauses would then describe secondary attributes. Following this assumption, if we shuffle it around a bit, we could insist more on the fact that the main attribute of the officer is, for example, being “tall” instead of “young”: “jaqbogh ’ach maw’bogh ’ej Qupbogh yaS woch vIlegh” <I see a *tall officer*, (who is) young, bold but crazy.> or if we want to put absolutely all attributes on an equal footing, then we use –bogh everywhere, so the main object of the sentence is no longer a tall or young officer (who is bold but crazy…), but just “an officer” (who is young, tall etc): “Qupbogh ’ej wochbogh ’ej jaqbogh ’ach maw’bogh yaS vIlegh” <I see a young, tall, bold but crazy *officer*.> 2/ yaS Qup vIlegh. jaq, woch... 'ach maw'qu' Here there are 2 statements so each statement highlights a different focus point. - yaS Qup vIlegh : focus on “I see an officer” (the “core” part of the action, with no descriptive element) - jaq, woch... 'ach maw'qu': the description of the officer that I see, with an emphasis on “… but he is really crazy” So it seems to bring a different nuance from what I'd suggested. Sorry if I over-analyze it though! (I like to go into the details, and this is also really important in translation) Let me know what you think :) Also, next time, maybe it’s best if I don’t use the KLBC anymore, so everyone is free to join the conversation directly if they want. ~mughwI' 2016-09-30 0:35 GMT+02:00 John R. Harness <cartweel@gmail.com>:
Hi all --
Lieven: "And regarding your question, you already answered it yourself - but I'll let the BG tell you why."
Actually I don't know why, other than that's how people do it. Maybe because it starts to produce parsing errors?
mughwI': “jaqbogh ‘ach maw’bogh ‘ej wochbogh yaS Qup vIlegh.”
I think this is alright but why do it that way? -> Consider: {{yaS Qup vIlegh. jaq, woch... 'ach maw'qu'!}}
'arHa
--
Socialist Alternative <http://www.socialistalternative.org/> Klingon Language Institute <http://www.kli.org/>
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Lieven:
And regarding your question, you already answered it yourself - but I'll let the BG tell you why.
Aurélie Demonchaux:
Is there a canon reference somewhere listing several adjectives linked to the same noun? As in:
While we're waiting for the BG here are the references you requested:
romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI' Romulan hunter-killer probe (KCD)
SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh The tea that is {SuD} and light. (KGT) (i.e. light green tea)
Suto'vo'qor botlhDaq pe'vIl joqchu'taH quvbogh 'ej valbogh tIqDu' tIQ [translation unavailable] (PB)
This last example is controversial so I wouldn't advise using it:
yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI' Say'moHchu' may' 'Iw The blood of battle washes clean the warrior brave and true. (Anthem)
It's the only known example of the pattern {X-bogh Y-bogh je NOUN} -- possibly because it's a song lyric and the translation had to fit the meter.
-- Voragh tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a' Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
_______________________________________________ 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
always -until now-, I never thought of using more than two adjectives on the same noun. why ? because somehow, I had gotten the impression that the maximum number is two. obviously I was wrong, however I feel that even if it is legal to use three adjectives on a single noun, then the resulting sentence would be rather long and perhaps difficult to follow. even in english (and greek if anyone wonders..), you would say "I see a hungry white cat", but you wouldn't say " I see a funny hungry white cat". It wouldn't be grammatically wrong, but it just wouldn't "sound nice". you would prefer to say something like "I see a funny white cat, which is hungry". so, why not follow 'arHa's advice and break down your klingon sentence into 2 smaller ones. the goal in klingon shouldn't be long, complex sentences; you should rather strive to express yourself in small ones, which the reader is easily able to follow. anyway, as americans say "this is my 2 cents on this subject" qunnoq ghogh HablI'wIjvo' vIngeHta' On 30 Sep 2016 12:46 p.m., "Aurélie Demonchaux" < demonchaux.aurelie@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks all for your reply! (Hoch tujangta’mo’ qatlho’!)
*@**Quvar valer 'utlh*
Savan!
Your message marked as KLBC is directed to one person only, so it may be more correct to say {qavan}, but that's really nitpicking ;-)
jIyaj, Dochmey mach jISaH je!
What I actually wanted to say is that you speak so much Klingon already, that you are not a true "beginner".
qatlho’ :) ’ach Dochmey law’ tu’lu’ ’e’ wej vIghojta’.
PS: if possible, deactivate autoformatting for apostrophes.
qaghwI' vIvevmo’, DaH <Alt + 0146> vIlo’ ’e’ vIwaH.
*@Voragh:*
qu’! pab lo’mey cho’aghta’mo’ qatlho’ :)
*@’arHa:*
“jaqbogh ’ach maw’bogh ’ej wochbogh yaS Qup vIlegh.” I think this is alright but why do it that way? -> Consider: {{yaS Qup vIlegh. jaq, woch... 'ach maw'qu'!}}
Yes it makes sense too. But in this case, wouldn’t it shift the focus of the text?
1/ “jaqbogh ’ach maw’bogh ’ej wochbogh yaS Qup vIlegh”
I feel that here the focus of the sentence is more on the description of the officer that I’m seeing, with his 1st three attributes <jaq>, <maw’>, <woch> on an equal footing, and <Qup> being considered the most essential attribute, since it’s directly added after <yaS>.
We can show the highlight as below:
<I see a *young officer*, (who is) tall, bold but crazy.>
The way I interpret things (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that, in Klingon, if we put a normal adjective just after the noun, then it would be considered as the noun’s main / defining attribute, and the relative clauses would then describe secondary attributes.
Following this assumption, if we shuffle it around a bit, we could insist more on the fact that the main attribute of the officer is, for example, being “tall” instead of “young”:
“jaqbogh ’ach maw’bogh ’ej Qupbogh yaS woch vIlegh”
<I see a *tall officer*, (who is) young, bold but crazy.>
or if we want to put absolutely all attributes on an equal footing, then we use –bogh everywhere, so the main object of the sentence is no longer a tall or young officer (who is bold but crazy…), but just “an officer” (who is young, tall etc):
“Qupbogh ’ej wochbogh ’ej jaqbogh ’ach maw’bogh yaS vIlegh”
<I see a young, tall, bold but crazy *officer*.>
2/ yaS Qup vIlegh. jaq, woch... 'ach maw'qu'
Here there are 2 statements so each statement highlights a different focus point.
- yaS Qup vIlegh : focus on “I see an officer” (the “core” part of the action, with no descriptive element) - jaq, woch... 'ach maw'qu': the description of the officer that I see, with an emphasis on “… but he is really crazy”
So it seems to bring a different nuance from what I'd suggested.
Sorry if I over-analyze it though! (I like to go into the details, and this is also really important in translation) Let me know what you think :)
Also, next time, maybe it’s best if I don’t use the KLBC anymore, so everyone is free to join the conversation directly if they want.
~mughwI'
2016-09-30 0:35 GMT+02:00 John R. Harness <cartweel@gmail.com>:
Hi all --
Lieven: "And regarding your question, you already answered it yourself - but I'll let the BG tell you why."
Actually I don't know why, other than that's how people do it. Maybe because it starts to produce parsing errors?
mughwI': “jaqbogh ‘ach maw’bogh ‘ej wochbogh yaS Qup vIlegh.”
I think this is alright but why do it that way? -> Consider: {{yaS Qup vIlegh. jaq, woch... 'ach maw'qu'!}}
'arHa
--
Socialist Alternative <http://www.socialistalternative.org/> Klingon Language Institute <http://www.kli.org/>
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Lieven:
And regarding your question, you already answered it yourself - but I'll let the BG tell you why.
Aurélie Demonchaux:
Is there a canon reference somewhere listing several adjectives linked to the same noun? As in:
While we're waiting for the BG here are the references you requested:
romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI' Romulan hunter-killer probe (KCD)
SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh The tea that is {SuD} and light. (KGT) (i.e. light green tea)
Suto'vo'qor botlhDaq pe'vIl joqchu'taH quvbogh 'ej valbogh tIqDu' tIQ [translation unavailable] (PB)
This last example is controversial so I wouldn't advise using it:
yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI' Say'moHchu' may' 'Iw The blood of battle washes clean the warrior brave and true. (Anthem)
It's the only known example of the pattern {X-bogh Y-bogh je NOUN} -- possibly because it's a song lyric and the translation had to fit the meter.
-- Voragh tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a' Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
@qunnoq [...]
I feel that even if it is legal to use three adjectives on a single noun, then the resulting sentence would be rather long and perhaps difficult to follow.
Yes it makes sense, it does get complicated after a bit, and actually we seldom have more than 2-3 adjectives in French as well. Plus, now that I think further on it, a Klingon may be more likely to just select 1 main attribute - whichever is most relevant - in a sentence to cut straight to the point. mughwI' 2016-09-30 15:07 GMT+02:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
always -until now-, I never thought of using more than two adjectives on the same noun.
why ? because somehow, I had gotten the impression that the maximum number is two.
obviously I was wrong, however I feel that even if it is legal to use three adjectives on a single noun, then the resulting sentence would be rather long and perhaps difficult to follow.
even in english (and greek if anyone wonders..), you would say "I see a hungry white cat", but you wouldn't say " I see a funny hungry white cat". It wouldn't be grammatically wrong, but it just wouldn't "sound nice". you would prefer to say something like "I see a funny white cat, which is hungry". so, why not follow 'arHa's advice and break down your klingon sentence into 2 smaller ones.
the goal in klingon shouldn't be long, complex sentences; you should rather strive to express yourself in small ones, which the reader is easily able to follow.
anyway, as americans say "this is my 2 cents on this subject"
qunnoq ghogh HablI'wIjvo' vIngeHta'
On 30 Sep 2016 12:46 p.m., "Aurélie Demonchaux" < demonchaux.aurelie@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks all for your reply! (Hoch tujangta’mo’ qatlho’!)
*@**Quvar valer 'utlh*
Savan!
Your message marked as KLBC is directed to one person only, so it may be more correct to say {qavan}, but that's really nitpicking ;-)
jIyaj, Dochmey mach jISaH je!
What I actually wanted to say is that you speak so much Klingon already, that you are not a true "beginner".
qatlho’ :) ’ach Dochmey law’ tu’lu’ ’e’ wej vIghojta’.
PS: if possible, deactivate autoformatting for apostrophes.
qaghwI' vIvevmo’, DaH <Alt + 0146> vIlo’ ’e’ vIwaH.
*@Voragh:*
qu’! pab lo’mey cho’aghta’mo’ qatlho’ :)
*@’arHa:*
“jaqbogh ’ach maw’bogh ’ej wochbogh yaS Qup vIlegh.” I think this is alright but why do it that way? -> Consider: {{yaS Qup vIlegh. jaq, woch... 'ach maw'qu'!}}
Yes it makes sense too. But in this case, wouldn’t it shift the focus of the text?
1/ “jaqbogh ’ach maw’bogh ’ej wochbogh yaS Qup vIlegh”
I feel that here the focus of the sentence is more on the description of the officer that I’m seeing, with his 1st three attributes <jaq>, <maw’>, <woch> on an equal footing, and <Qup> being considered the most essential attribute, since it’s directly added after <yaS>.
We can show the highlight as below:
<I see a *young officer*, (who is) tall, bold but crazy.>
The way I interpret things (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that, in Klingon, if we put a normal adjective just after the noun, then it would be considered as the noun’s main / defining attribute, and the relative clauses would then describe secondary attributes.
Following this assumption, if we shuffle it around a bit, we could insist more on the fact that the main attribute of the officer is, for example, being “tall” instead of “young”:
“jaqbogh ’ach maw’bogh ’ej Qupbogh yaS woch vIlegh”
<I see a *tall officer*, (who is) young, bold but crazy.>
or if we want to put absolutely all attributes on an equal footing, then we use –bogh everywhere, so the main object of the sentence is no longer a tall or young officer (who is bold but crazy…), but just “an officer” (who is young, tall etc):
“Qupbogh ’ej wochbogh ’ej jaqbogh ’ach maw’bogh yaS vIlegh”
<I see a young, tall, bold but crazy *officer*.>
2/ yaS Qup vIlegh. jaq, woch... 'ach maw'qu'
Here there are 2 statements so each statement highlights a different focus point.
- yaS Qup vIlegh : focus on “I see an officer” (the “core” part of the action, with no descriptive element) - jaq, woch... 'ach maw'qu': the description of the officer that I see, with an emphasis on “… but he is really crazy”
So it seems to bring a different nuance from what I'd suggested.
Sorry if I over-analyze it though! (I like to go into the details, and this is also really important in translation) Let me know what you think :)
Also, next time, maybe it’s best if I don’t use the KLBC anymore, so everyone is free to join the conversation directly if they want.
~mughwI'
2016-09-30 0:35 GMT+02:00 John R. Harness <cartweel@gmail.com>:
Hi all --
Lieven: "And regarding your question, you already answered it yourself - but I'll let the BG tell you why."
Actually I don't know why, other than that's how people do it. Maybe because it starts to produce parsing errors?
mughwI': “jaqbogh ‘ach maw’bogh ‘ej wochbogh yaS Qup vIlegh.”
I think this is alright but why do it that way? -> Consider: {{yaS Qup vIlegh. jaq, woch... 'ach maw'qu'!}}
'arHa
--
Socialist Alternative <http://www.socialistalternative.org/> Klingon Language Institute <http://www.kli.org/>
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Lieven:
And regarding your question, you already answered it yourself - but I'll let the BG tell you why.
Aurélie Demonchaux:
Is there a canon reference somewhere listing several adjectives linked to the same noun? As in:
While we're waiting for the BG here are the references you requested:
romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI' Romulan hunter-killer probe (KCD)
SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh The tea that is {SuD} and light. (KGT) (i.e. light green tea)
Suto'vo'qor botlhDaq pe'vIl joqchu'taH quvbogh 'ej valbogh tIqDu' tIQ [translation unavailable] (PB)
This last example is controversial so I wouldn't advise using it:
yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI' Say'moHchu' may' 'Iw The blood of battle washes clean the warrior brave and true. (Anthem)
It's the only known example of the pattern {X-bogh Y-bogh je NOUN} -- possibly because it's a song lyric and the translation had to fit the meter.
-- Voragh tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a' Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
mughwI': You have indeed surpassed my understanding of the nuances of Klingon writing. I understand your questions, but I believe that an advanced speaker (I am only intermediate/conversational) would have more opinions re: the particular inflections you are asking about. I find myself more capable as a speaker of Klingon, rather than as a writer; in which sense other, verbal cues could do this work. If in the future you have a question that you think is of basic or beginners' relevance, then please continue to use the KLBC tag. Otherwise, as you say, feel free not to do so so that no one feels obligated to wait. As we've all said, your Klingon capabilities are marvelous given that you have just begun! Keep it up! Qapla'! -- Socialist Alternative <http://www.socialistalternative.org/> Klingon Language Institute <http://www.kli.org/> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 4:46 AM, Aurélie Demonchaux < demonchaux.aurelie@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks all for your reply! (Hoch tujangta’mo’ qatlho’!)
*@**Quvar valer 'utlh*
Savan!
Your message marked as KLBC is directed to one person only, so it may be more correct to say {qavan}, but that's really nitpicking ;-)
jIyaj, Dochmey mach jISaH je!
What I actually wanted to say is that you speak so much Klingon already, that you are not a true "beginner".
qatlho’ :) ’ach Dochmey law’ tu’lu’ ’e’ wej vIghojta’.
PS: if possible, deactivate autoformatting for apostrophes.
qaghwI' vIvevmo’, DaH <Alt + 0146> vIlo’ ’e’ vIwaH.
*@Voragh:*
qu’! pab lo’mey cho’aghta’mo’ qatlho’ :)
*@’arHa:*
“jaqbogh ’ach maw’bogh ’ej wochbogh yaS Qup vIlegh.” I think this is alright but why do it that way? -> Consider: {{yaS Qup vIlegh. jaq, woch... 'ach maw'qu'!}}
Yes it makes sense too. But in this case, wouldn’t it shift the focus of the text?
1/ “jaqbogh ’ach maw’bogh ’ej wochbogh yaS Qup vIlegh”
I feel that here the focus of the sentence is more on the description of the officer that I’m seeing, with his 1st three attributes <jaq>, <maw’>, <woch> on an equal footing, and <Qup> being considered the most essential attribute, since it’s directly added after <yaS>.
We can show the highlight as below:
<I see a *young officer*, (who is) tall, bold but crazy.>
The way I interpret things (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that, in Klingon, if we put a normal adjective just after the noun, then it would be considered as the noun’s main / defining attribute, and the relative clauses would then describe secondary attributes.
Following this assumption, if we shuffle it around a bit, we could insist more on the fact that the main attribute of the officer is, for example, being “tall” instead of “young”:
“jaqbogh ’ach maw’bogh ’ej Qupbogh yaS woch vIlegh”
<I see a *tall officer*, (who is) young, bold but crazy.>
or if we want to put absolutely all attributes on an equal footing, then we use –bogh everywhere, so the main object of the sentence is no longer a tall or young officer (who is bold but crazy…), but just “an officer” (who is young, tall etc):
“Qupbogh ’ej wochbogh ’ej jaqbogh ’ach maw’bogh yaS vIlegh”
<I see a young, tall, bold but crazy *officer*.>
2/ yaS Qup vIlegh. jaq, woch... 'ach maw'qu'
Here there are 2 statements so each statement highlights a different focus point.
- yaS Qup vIlegh : focus on “I see an officer” (the “core” part of the action, with no descriptive element) - jaq, woch... 'ach maw'qu': the description of the officer that I see, with an emphasis on “… but he is really crazy”
So it seems to bring a different nuance from what I'd suggested.
Sorry if I over-analyze it though! (I like to go into the details, and this is also really important in translation) Let me know what you think :)
Also, next time, maybe it’s best if I don’t use the KLBC anymore, so everyone is free to join the conversation directly if they want.
~mughwI'
2016-09-30 0:35 GMT+02:00 John R. Harness <cartweel@gmail.com>:
Hi all --
Lieven: "And regarding your question, you already answered it yourself - but I'll let the BG tell you why."
Actually I don't know why, other than that's how people do it. Maybe because it starts to produce parsing errors?
mughwI': “jaqbogh ‘ach maw’bogh ‘ej wochbogh yaS Qup vIlegh.”
I think this is alright but why do it that way? -> Consider: {{yaS Qup vIlegh. jaq, woch... 'ach maw'qu'!}}
'arHa
--
Socialist Alternative <http://www.socialistalternative.org/> Klingon Language Institute <http://www.kli.org/>
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Lieven:
And regarding your question, you already answered it yourself - but I'll let the BG tell you why.
Aurélie Demonchaux:
Is there a canon reference somewhere listing several adjectives linked to the same noun? As in:
While we're waiting for the BG here are the references you requested:
romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI' Romulan hunter-killer probe (KCD)
SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh The tea that is {SuD} and light. (KGT) (i.e. light green tea)
Suto'vo'qor botlhDaq pe'vIl joqchu'taH quvbogh 'ej valbogh tIqDu' tIQ [translation unavailable] (PB)
This last example is controversial so I wouldn't advise using it:
yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI' Say'moHchu' may' 'Iw The blood of battle washes clean the warrior brave and true. (Anthem)
It's the only known example of the pattern {X-bogh Y-bogh je NOUN} -- possibly because it's a song lyric and the translation had to fit the meter.
-- Voragh tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a' Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Aurélie Demonchaux <demonchaux.aurelie@gmail.com> wrote:
Looking at the TKD’s adjective section, I could see that all the examples only have 1 adjective per noun.
So what happens if you want to describe something which has several attributes within a sentence?
Klingon for the Galactic Traveler gives a clear answer to this question. In the section on visual arts and colors (page 82), it tells us that multiple adjectival verbs are not put on the same noun. The example of how to do this is {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh} "the tea which is {SuD} and light" (describing yellow tea). If the attributes are all of the same importance, use the {X-bogh N 'ej Y-bogh} phrasing. If you think one of them is more part of the essential nature of what you are talking about, there shouldn't be a problem using that one in an adjectival way. -- ghunchu'wI'
@’arHa:
If in the future you have a question that you think is of basic or beginners' relevance, then please continue to use the KLBC tag. Otherwise, as you say, feel free not to do so so that no one feels obligated to wait. As we've all said, your Klingon capabilities are marvelous given that you have just begun! Keep it up! Qapla'!
Ok thanks a lot, I'll make sure to follow your recommendation, and keep on learning! :) @ghunchu'wI': Thanks, I'll make a good note of the {X-bogh N 'ej Y-bogh} construction for the future. Qapla' ! mughwI' 2016-10-01 3:06 GMT+02:00 Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net>:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Aurélie Demonchaux <demonchaux.aurelie@gmail.com> wrote:
Looking at the TKD’s adjective section, I could see that all the examples only have 1 adjective per noun.
So what happens if you want to describe something which has several attributes within a sentence?
Klingon for the Galactic Traveler gives a clear answer to this question. In the section on visual arts and colors (page 82), it tells us that multiple adjectival verbs are not put on the same noun. The example of how to do this is {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh} "the tea which is {SuD} and light" (describing yellow tea). If the attributes are all of the same importance, use the {X-bogh N 'ej Y-bogh} phrasing. If you think one of them is more part of the essential nature of what you are talking about, there shouldn't be a problem using that one in an adjectival way.
-- ghunchu'wI' _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (6)
-
Alan Anderson -
Aurélie Demonchaux -
John R. Harness -
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
Steven Boozer