Qo'noS romuluS je boSuqlaH. vabDot tera' Qejbogh DIvI' ram boSuqlaH. Kronos, Romulus and even the puny Federation's precious Earth, are all up for grabs. (MKE) vabDot Sovbe' targhwIj Even my targ won't know! (qep'a' 2018 Secrecy Proverb) (janSIy, 8/06/2018]): It's more literally “in addition, my targ will not know”, with an assumed reference to others not knowing in the first place. (qepHom 2017): {vabDot} means something like “moreover, furthermore, even”. “Even” is a good English translation of {vabDot} in a number of contexts. It's not the only definition of {vabDot}, but I think it's okay as part of the definition. But there's a little more to it than that. *It's used to say that something is unexpected or surprising or counterintuitive*, not just additional. For something that's just additional, you'd probably use {je} “also”. Grammatically, {vabDot} is considered an adverbial. Another such adverbial is {neH}: (TKD 56f): One word fits somewhat awkwardly into this category: {neH} “only, merely, just”. Unlike the other adverbials, it follows the verb which it modifies. [ … ] Also unlike the other adverbials, {neH} can follow a noun. In such cases, it means “only, alone”. {yaS neH} “only the officer, the officer alone”. {jonta' neH} “only the engine." .. and {neHHa’} : (qurgh, 7/28/2017 < qep’a’ 2017): I also asked Marc again about using {-Ha'} on adverbs. He said that if it makes sense, then {-Ha'} could be used. I offered the example of {tlhIngan Hol neHHa' vIjatlh} and he translated that as “I speak not only Klingon” as in “I speak many languages including Klingon”. Note that when they apply to only one word and not the entire clause they follow that word instead of being in the usual slot for adverbials at the head of the clause. -- Voragh, Ca'Non Master of the Klingons Please contribute relevant vocabulary or notes from the last year or two. I’ve fallen woefully behind in updating my files. ___________________________________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol On Behalf Of mayqel qunen'oS SuStel:

Adverbials typically apply their meaning to entire clauses, not just a noun or a verb in a clause. {vabDot} means that the clause it's attached to is additional information that is surprising or counterintuitive. {vabDot Human tISam} means: locate the humans; this order may be surprising or counterintuitive. {Human'e' vabDot tISam} means: locate the humans, as opposed to someone else; this order may be surprising or counterintuitive. So if you can describe in full detail what the difference between locate even the humans and even locate the humans is, then you can determine whether the Klingon means either or both of those.

Indeed, the "even locate the humans" sounds strange. Perhaps it could be understood in the context of "don't just scan them; even locate them". Anyway, I'm glad to learn that the Klingon can mean both depending on context.

paq'batlh:

lujang maS'e' loQ So'be'bogh QIb lurur ghunchu'wI': That's a very good example. Topicalizing the object maS and placing it before the adverbial loQ avoids/resolves the potential ambiguity of whether or not the adverbial applies to the main verb rur.

Initially, reading the comment of ghuchu'wI', I was inclined to dismiss it thinking that "it cannot be, there still has to be some ambiguity". But as hard as I tried to find this ambiguity I couldn't. So I started wondering why that is. Finally I came to the conclusion that in cases like these, the ambiguity vanishes for the simple fact that the adverb isn't in the appropriate slot for an ambiguity to exist. There are two slots for an adverb: Slot A: At the beginning of the sentence Slot B: After a topicalized object Ambiguity can exist only when there's an adverb in Slot A, for the simple reason that unless an adverb is an adverb referring to a verb, which adverb follows the topicalized object of that verb, there's no way for that adverb to occupy the slot between that verb and its' topicalized object. So, now I understand the comment of ghunchu'wI'. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ

You seem entangled. As I understand it, the core of the confusion over {-‘e’} is that it is used in two very different ways: 1. It is applied to a noun IN ITS NORMAL PLACE IN THE SENTENCE as a “focus” marker, applying some sort of emphasis on the noun, which would be the subject or object of a verb (since you can’t mark it with some other Type 5 suffix for some other grammatical function if you’ve already used up that slot with {-‘e’}). 2. It is applied to a noun at the head of the sentence, which is the “topic” of the sentence, typically defining the scope under consideration for the rest of the sentence. Add the complication that, if the noun is the object of the verb and there is an adverbial, you can put the object before the adverbial. This is what ghunchu’wI’ was commenting on. The “You would be the greatest warrior in the galaxy” quote is an example of #2, not #1, so it has nothing to do with ghunchu’wI’s comment. You go on to suggest that a noun at the beginning of the sentence with {-‘e’} could be acting as the subject of the sentence as follows. No, it cannot. The subject of the sentence has to come after its verb. It can have {-‘e’} applied to it in that position, but you can’t put it at the beginning of the sentence and have it function as the subject. Indirectly, this can sort-of, kind-of be true if the noun is the Topic of the sentence and there’s an implied pronoun subject which is defined by the topic, much like the comparative you brought up. The meaning is more like: On the topic of soldiers in the galaxy, you would be the greatest. I am NOT saying: You would be the greatest soldier in the galaxy. That’s something you figure out logically, not grammatically. You can translate it that way, but that’s not what it directly means in Klingon according to the grammar. There is no Klingon phrase “the greatest soldier in the galaxy” in that sentence. That meaning is derived indirectly, because we are only talking about soldiers in the galaxy, and we are saying, “You are the greatest.” The subject is “You” and there’s no {-‘e’} on {SoH}. Except for subjects of “to be” pronouns, it’s rare to see {-‘e’} applied to a subject in Klingon. It can happen. It’s just not common. When it happens, it happens at the end of the sentence, not the beginning. Only the “topic” use of {-‘e’} places a noun at the beginning of the sentence. If the noun is an object of a verb, it is already at the beginning of the sentence because of its role as object, and you add the {-‘e’} to it in place. That’s why it can be confusing. There’s nothing obviously differentiating between a Topic and a Focused Object of a sentence. Both have {-‘e’}. Both come at the beginning of the sentence. Add to this that you can move an adverbial to after said object noun, if it helps with clearing up ambiguity. Does this make sense? Am I misunderstanding the problem here, or am I simply wrong?

On Mar 14, 2022, at 9:56 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

 And thinking this further, perhaps this is the reason one should avoid placing a noun with the {-'e'} at the beginning of a sentence, as the topic/subject of the sentence to follow. Meaning, writing things like {romuluSnganpu''e' chaH ghompu'bogh Seghmey..} for "As for the Romulans, the races which encountered them..".

If someone places an {-'e'} on a noun which he intends to be the subject of the sentence to follow, then in the case that he places an adverb right after that noun, one could wonder whether the {-'e'}ed noun is the subject of the sentence or the topicalized object of the verb which would follow the adverb.

Of course, for such confusion to exist the verb prefix would need to allow that too, and qeylIS knows I'm too tired right now to even attempt writing such a sentence. But I believe this is another reason *not* to use {-'e'}ed nouns as just the subject of the sentence which follows.

Perhaps someone will now say: Yes, but there's the example of {qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS} "You would be the greatest warrior in the galaxy".

True, this Ca'Non example exists, but it's a law'/puS construction and not a "regular" ovs sentence, so no ambiguity can possibly exist.

-- 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