De'vID:

What do you mean by "wrong"? It's grammatically correct. It just doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

So, the {Su'IH. 'ej Suwoch je} is grammatically correct, but the {je} can't be used in this way to say "you are beautiful, and you (the same group) are also tall", without a reference/comparison being made to another group, which is also tall. Right ? qunnoq On 15 Aug 2017 6:22 pm, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote: On 15 August 2017 at 17:10, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

So, all this means that the following use of {je}:

{Su'IH. 'ej Suwoch je} You are beautiful. And you are also tall.

is wrong ?

What do you mean by "wrong"? It's grammatically correct. It just doesn't mean what you want it to mean. Here's a context in which that sentence makes sense. To group A: {SumoH 'ej Suwoch} "Y'all are ugly. Y'all are tall." To group B: {Su'IH 'ej Suwoch je} "Y'all are beautiful. Y'all are tall too." That is, "Y'all (in addition to people in group A) are tall". -- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

SuStel:

Answer this: what is the difference between *You are beautiful > and you are tall* and *You are beautiful and you are also tall*?

Meaning-wise, there is no difference; at least no difference that I can think of. However, the reason which led to this thread in the first place, wasn't that I actually believed there was a difference to start with. The problem is, that if you're writing a klingon passage, which will be only 5-10 sentences, then you can certainly go ahead and repeat the same word several times. But when you start writing longer passages, soon you realize that even though alternate ways of expressing the same thing - as far as their meaning is concerned - may be identical, you still need them. Why ? Because you owe it to the reader, to present to him a passage, which doesn't make him tired with the same repetitions over and over. Who would like to read something like: {yadda yadda 'ej yadda. yadda 'ej. yadda yadda 'ej. yadda 'ej yadda yadda. 'ej yadda}. ? It may be grammatical, but it is ugly. And quite frankly, if I was reading something like it, I would get the feeling that the writer is either lazy, or incompetent. Now, if canon doesn't give is the tools to write in a fluid, and pleasant way for the reader, then that's another story. But if there were ways to write more fluidly, without breaking any rules, then why not explore the possibility ? qunnoq On 15 Aug 2017 6:48 pm, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

De'vID:

...

What do you mean by "wrong"? It's grammatically correct. It just doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

So, the {Su'IH. 'ej Suwoch je} is grammatically correct, but the {je} can't be used in this way to say "you are beautiful, and you (the same group) are also tall", without a reference/comparison being made to another group, which is also tall. Right ?

qunnoq

On 15 Aug 2017 6:22 pm, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

On 15 August 2017 at 17:10, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

...

So, all this means that the following use of {je}:

{Su'IH. 'ej Suwoch je} You are beautiful. And you are also tall.

is wrong ?

What do you mean by "wrong"? It's grammatically correct. It just doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

Here's a context in which that sentence makes sense. To group A: {SumoH 'ej Suwoch} "Y'all are ugly. Y'all are tall." To group B: {Su'IH 'ej Suwoch je} "Y'all are beautiful. Y'all are tall too." That is, "Y'all (in addition to people in group A) are tall".

-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 12:43 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

Give them to me in context and I'll give you even more possibilities. Give me a passage you consider plodding and we'll come up with something better. On 8/15/2017 12:25 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:

Because you owe it to the reader, to present to him a passage, which doesn't make him tired with the same repetitions over and over.

Who would like to read something like: {yadda yadda 'ej yadda. yadda 'ej. yadda yadda 'ej. yadda 'ej yadda yadda. 'ej yadda}. ?

You're looking for synonyms. *je* is not a synonym for *'ej.* Don't abuse the grammar in the search of novelty of expression. No me talk funny need for to be interesting.

*Su'IH 'ej Suwoch Su'IH; Suwoch * *'IHwI' tlhIH 'ej wochwI' tlhIH 'IHwI' wochwI' je tlhIH*

In addition to this, it also seems like you're trying to remove redundancy where it wouldn't be a problem. Readers tend to not pay much attention to basic function words in the language. They read them, get the meaning, and then let the memory drift away. {'ej} is a common, basic conjunction. Seeing it many times in a short passage is probably not going to stick in the mind of a Klingon reader as "redundant", because they would see it all the time. (Complex thoughts tend to be expressed in multiple sentences in Klingon, so it's possible voracious Klingon readers are more used to sentences that use {'ej} a lot than English readers would be to sentences that use "and" a lot.)