If I wanted to say, for example, "animals which are not tribbles", how would I do it? I don't think *yIHmey bIHbe'bogh Ha'DIbaHmey('e'?)* would be grammatical... but is there a good way to say it? -QISta'
I would personally reword things to say it differently. What's the bigger idea that you are trying to say? eg: "I like all animals which are not tribbles" - "I like all animals but I dislike tribbles" - "Ha'DIbaH vIparHa' 'ach yIH vIpar" qurgh On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 8:17 PM Christa Hansberry <chransberry@gmail.com> wrote:
If I wanted to say, for example, "animals which are not tribbles", how would I do it? I don't think *yIHmey bIHbe'bogh Ha'DIbaHmey('e'?)* would be grammatical... but is there a good way to say it?
-QISta' _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
There's no word for "but not" in Klingon (particularly to link nouns!) but you don't need to complete a sentence if the listener knows what you're going to say. If you say {Ha'DIbaH vIparHa' 'ach yIH}, it's bloody obvious how you feel about tribbles. On 3/21/19, qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:
I would personally reword things to say it differently. What's the bigger idea that you are trying to say?
eg: "I like all animals which are not tribbles" - "I like all animals but I dislike tribbles" - "Ha'DIbaH vIparHa' 'ach yIH vIpar"
qurgh
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 8:17 PM Christa Hansberry <chransberry@gmail.com> wrote:
If I wanted to say, for example, "animals which are not tribbles", how would I do it? I don't think *yIHmey bIHbe'bogh Ha'DIbaHmey('e'?)* would be grammatical... but is there a good way to say it?
-QISta' _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
-- mIp'av yergho bu''a' baHwI' IKAV chuch 'etlh My modeling blog: http://bellerophon-modeler.blogspot.com/
You are assuming that a "but" would only lead to "hate". Sure, with tribbles it could be obvious. Ha'DIbaH vIparHa', 'ach vIghro' ... vIparHa'qu'. (Not saying I love cats. Just using this as an example.) - DloraH On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 01:10:55 -0400 Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
There's no word for "but not" in Klingon (particularly to link nouns!) but you don't need to complete a sentence if the listener knows what you're going to say. If you say {Ha'DIbaH vIparHa' 'ach yIH}, it's bloody obvious how you feel about tribbles.
On 3/21/19, qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:
I would personally reword things to say it differently. What's the bigger idea that you are trying to say?
eg: "I like all animals which are not tribbles" - "I like all animals but I dislike tribbles" - "Ha'DIbaH vIparHa' 'ach yIH vIpar"
qurgh
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 8:17 PM Christa Hansberry <chransberry@gmail.com> wrote:
If I wanted to say, for example, "animals which are not tribbles", how would I do it? I don't think *yIHmey bIHbe'bogh Ha'DIbaHmey('e'?)* would be grammatical... but is there a good way to say it?
-QISta' _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
A Klingon going for laughs might go against expectations: Ha'DIbaH vIparHa' 'ach yIH... vIparHa'qu'! On Friday, March 22, 2019, DloraH <seruq@bellsouth.net> wrote:
You are assuming that a "but" would only lead to "hate". Sure, with tribbles it could be obvious.
Ha'DIbaH vIparHa', 'ach vIghro' ... vIparHa'qu'.
(Not saying I love cats. Just using this as an example.)
- DloraH
-- mIp'av yergho bu''a' baHwI' IKAV chuch 'etlh My modeling blog: http://bellerophon-modeler.blogspot.com/
On Mar 21, 2019, at 20:16, Christa Hansberry <chransberry@gmail.com> wrote:
If I wanted to say, for example, "animals which are not tribbles", how would I do it? I don't think *yIHmey bIHbe'bogh Ha'DIbaHmey('e'?)* would be grammatical... but is there a good way to say it?
I believe that’s the idea behind this chabal tetlh suggestion: https://www.kli.org/chabal/be-not-something-non/
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 8:17 PM Christa Hansberry <chransberry@gmail.com> wrote:
If I wanted to say, for example, "animals which are not tribbles", how would I do it? I don't think *yIHmey bIHbe'bogh Ha'DIbaHmey('e'?)* would be grammatical... but is there a good way to say it? <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org>
Why wouldn't it be grammatical? Pronouns-as-copula can take *-be'*: *loD Quch jIHbe'.* They can take *-bogh*: paq'batlh has *ghaHtaHbogh*. *yIHmey bIHbe'bogh Ha'DIbaHmey'e'* seems completely fine to me.
On 3/22/2019 11:47 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 8:17 PM Christa Hansberry <chransberry@gmail.com <mailto:chransberry@gmail.com>> wrote:
If I wanted to say, for example, "animals which are not tribbles", how would I do it? I don't think *yIHmey bIHbe'bogh Ha'DIbaHmey('e'?)* would be grammatical... but is there a good way to say it?
Why wouldn't it be grammatical? Pronouns-as-copula can take *-be'*: *loD Quch jIHbe'/./* They can take *-bogh*: paq'batlh has *ghaHtaHbogh*. *yIHmey bIHbe'bogh Ha'DIbaHmey'e'* seems completely fine to me.
Note that the *-'e'* is not optional here. Not only is it grammatical, but I don't see any reason not to say it either, if it best expresses what you mean. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Well, the X [pronoun] Y'e' construction seems somewhat different from the normal object-verb-subject... always explained like "as for Y, it is X." So it didn't seem like that should work. Facial expression and tone would probably be very significant in the "'ach yIH..." scenario. -QISta' On Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 09:52 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 3/22/2019 11:47 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 8:17 PM Christa Hansberry <chransberry@gmail.com> wrote:
If I wanted to say, for example, "animals which are not tribbles", how would I do it? I don't think *yIHmey bIHbe'bogh Ha'DIbaHmey('e'?)* would be grammatical... but is there a good way to say it?
Why wouldn't it be grammatical? Pronouns-as-copula can take *-be'*: *loD Quch jIHbe'.* They can take *-bogh*: paq'batlh has *ghaHtaHbogh*. *yIHmey bIHbe'bogh Ha'DIbaHmey'e'* seems completely fine to me.
Note that the *-'e'* is not optional here.
Not only is it grammatical, but I don't see any reason not to say it either, if it best expresses what you mean.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
So I guess it's a matter of whether -'e' can be in a relative clause. -QISta' On Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 10:04 Christa Hansberry <chransberry@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, the X [pronoun] Y'e' construction seems somewhat different from the normal object-verb-subject... always explained like "as for Y, it is X." So it didn't seem like that should work.
Facial expression and tone would probably be very significant in the "'ach yIH..." scenario.
-QISta'
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 09:52 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 3/22/2019 11:47 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 8:17 PM Christa Hansberry <chransberry@gmail.com> wrote:
If I wanted to say, for example, "animals which are not tribbles", how would I do it? I don't think *yIHmey bIHbe'bogh Ha'DIbaHmey('e'?)* would be grammatical... but is there a good way to say it?
Why wouldn't it be grammatical? Pronouns-as-copula can take *-be'*: *loD Quch jIHbe'.* They can take *-bogh*: paq'batlh has *ghaHtaHbogh*. *yIHmey bIHbe'bogh Ha'DIbaHmey'e'* seems completely fine to me.
Note that the *-'e'* is not optional here.
Not only is it grammatical, but I don't see any reason not to say it either, if it best expresses what you mean.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 19:52:12 +0200 "mayqel qunen'oS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
DloraH:
Not saying I love cats. Just using this as an example
vIghro'mey DaparHa'be''a' ? you don't like cats ?
~ changan qIj I find defiance of ca'non disturbing
vIghro' parHa' be'nal. juHmajDaq law' vIghro'. Dat turmIq tu'lu' jay'. Hoch tey. quS Qaw'. De'wI' raS (yor/tlhIm)(?) tun SIj. vIghro' DIr tlhIm vIchenmoH vIneH. - DloraH
Oh yeah, I forgot about the -'e' being used to mark the head noun; I fear I got a bit out of practice :-P. It's a different use of -'e', but it does show they're not incompatible... Thank you for the responses! -QISta' On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 3:53 PM DloraH <seruq@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 19:52:12 +0200 "mayqel qunen'oS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
DloraH:
Not saying I love cats. Just using this as an example
vIghro'mey DaparHa'be''a' ? you don't like cats ?
~ changan qIj I find defiance of ca'non disturbing
vIghro' parHa' be'nal. juHmajDaq law' vIghro'. Dat turmIq tu'lu' jay'. Hoch tey. quS Qaw'. De'wI' raS (yor/tlhIm)(?) tun SIj.
vIghro' DIr tlhIm vIchenmoH vIneH.
- DloraH _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
I was completely on board with this, until I thought about it a little deeper. Then it got weird, until I though even deeper, and now, it all makes sense, and I completely agree. You can skip the rest of this, unless you are interested in a thought experiment. In terms of grammatical construction, yes, it appears to be completely correct, following all the grammatical rules we know. In this case {-‘e’} is doing two things: 1. It is doing what it always does in sentences like {tlhIngan ghaH Qanqor’e’}. We can argue about what the {-‘e’} is doing there, but we can’t really argue about whether or not it should be there. It just should. That’s how this kind of sentence always works. It’s like {-tu’lu’}. You can’t mess with it. Just do it. Don’t think too much about it. 2. It is marking the explicit head noun of a relative clause when the verb defining the relative clause has both a subject and an object. {puq’e’ qIppu’bogh loD Sov be’.} The woman knows the child who was hit by the man. {put qIppu’bogh loD’e’ Sov be’.} The woman knows the man who hit the child. Fine so far. Toss these two into a barrel, toss in some seasonings, and you get {yIHmey bIHbe’bogh Ha’DIbaHmey’e’ vImaS.} I prefer animals which are not tribbles. No problem. Hmmm. Okay, I completely agree that this is correct, now that I’ve fully explored what is going on here. The issue is that the underlying relative clause is false as a main clause — {yIHmey bIHbe’ Ha’DIbaHmey’e’}. Animals are not tribbles. Well, most of them are not tribbles, but… What is a subset of what? Going back to {tlhIngan ghaH Qanqor’e’}, the final noun with {-‘e’} is a subset of the first noun, or is the unity of the first noun, as in {SoSwI’ ghaH ‘elva’’e’}. You never say {Qanqor ghaH tlhIngan’e’} unless you are speaking about a specific Klingon who happens to be Krankor. The word with {-‘e’} is never the larger set of the two. But when you negate the pronoun-as-verb-to-be, in a relative clause you reverse roles of set and subset. Clearly {Ha’DIbaHmey} is the set, and {yIHmey} is the subset. You are negating the subset from the set, resulting in “the other subset”. In other words, there’s a subset of animals that are tribbles and a different subset of animals that are not tribbles. My confusion was that I wanted to ask how you would express the other side of the two options in example 2 above without thinking it through. At first glimpse, you can’t move the {-‘e’}, so you’d have to reverse the two nouns… blah, blah, blah, but what would I be saying? I prefer tribbles that are not animals? But all tribbles ARE animals. Huh? Riiiiight. Okay, so I slowly come to understand the oddness of a negative “to-be” relative clause at this new, deeper level. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Mar 22, 2019, at 11:52 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 3/22/2019 11:47 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 8:17 PM Christa Hansberry <chransberry@gmail.com <mailto:chransberry@gmail.com>> wrote: If I wanted to say, for example, "animals which are not tribbles", how would I do it? I don't think *yIHmey bIHbe'bogh Ha'DIbaHmey('e'?)* would be grammatical... but is there a good way to say it?
Why wouldn't it be grammatical? Pronouns-as-copula can take -be': loD Quch jIHbe'. They can take -bogh: paq'batlh has ghaHtaHbogh. yIHmey bIHbe'bogh Ha'DIbaHmey'e' seems completely fine to me. Note that the -'e' is not optional here.
Not only is it grammatical, but I don't see any reason not to say it either, if it best expresses what you mean.
-- 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
On 3/22/2019 4:00 PM, Will Martin wrote:
The issue is that the underlying relative clause is false as a main clause — {yIHmey bIHbe’ Ha’DIbaHmey’e’}. Animals are not tribbles.
Lacking articles, Klingon is unable to express the difference between /animals/ and /the animals/ without context. Rest assured, this sentence is perfectly sensible. K1: QI'yaH! Dat Ha'DIbaHmey tu'lu'! K2: qay' nuq? yIHmey Dalegh'a'? K1: ghobe', yIHmey bIHbe' Ha'DIbaHmey'e'. He'So'bogh targhmey bIH Ha'DIbaHmey'e'! -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (9)
-
Christa Hansberry -
Daniel Dadap -
DloraH -
Ed Bailey -
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
qurgh lungqIj -
SuStel -
Will Martin