info from paq'batlh that's not really new
There were a couple of issues with or questions about things in the 1st edition of the paq'batlh that people had sent to me, which did not result in changes in the 2nd edition or any really new information. I don't want to go through the whole book saying "this didn't change, and this didn't change also...", but these particular topics came up in a discussion I was having with Lieven, so I might as well share them with the list. {vegh} ====== {ghe'tor vegh Duj / Suto'vo'qor lojmitmey 'ej Duj} "The Barge went through Gre'thor / Into the gates of Sto-vo-kor" Previously, we'd been told that {vegh} means to go through an opening of some sort, like a door or tunnel, but not going through a forest. The issue was whether going through Gre'thor isn't like going through a forest. The explanation is that this usage of {vegh} is fine, because earlier in the chapter, it said that "They set sail over the Blood River / To Gre'thor, or so Kahless thought." So {ghe'tor vegh Duj} means that the Barge went through Gre'thor as if it were merely an opening or passage to Sto-vo-kor. The role of Gre'thor is as an opening to get to somewhere else. So in context, this usage of {vegh} actually makes sense. There's another place in the paq'batlh where {DIS} "cave" is the object of {vegh}. Kahless goes through the cave to reach the world beyond the living. Again, this is fine, for the same reason. The point of the "tunnel" and "forest" examples when the word was originally given was that the object of {vegh} is an opening one passes through to get somewhere, not that those specific things can and can't, respectively, be the object of {vegh}. If someone enters a tunnel to explore it, spending a lot of time there wandering around to collect rocks or bugs or something, and comes out the other end by happenstance, it isn't {vegh}. If there's a tunnel-like path made by trees in an otherwise dense forest and one goes through it to reach the castle in the middle because that's the way to get there, that can be {vegh}. Whenever Dr. Okrand gives an example to illustrate how something can and can't be used, it always implies "typically" or "generally" or "usually", because of course one can find exceptions in atypical cases. One typically goes through a tunnel to reach the other end in a straightforward way; one typically goes through a forest in a meandering way. There are a couple of usages of {vegh} with {lojmIt[mey]} in the paq'batlh, and these are obviously fine and uncontroversial. {je}, {'ej} ====== {SanlIj DanarghlaHbe' / chalqachDaq bIQaDbe' je} "You cannot escape your fate, / Even in a tower you are not safe!" In TKD, it says that when {je} follows a verb, "The exact meaning is determined by context". The example it gives illustrates ambiguity in the subject and object. However, we already knew that it's more expansive than this, as SkyBox card 2 {SuvwI' taj} had the following: {ghop luQan tajHommey. pe'laH je.} "the small knives protect the hands; they can also cut". In the paq'batlh sentence, it's doing the same thing: "you cannot escape your fate; in a tower you are also not safe". The use of "even" instead of "also" is just because it's a more natural expression in English. {qatlh Sutamchu' tlhIH / SuvwI'pu' Hem boghIjlu''a' / tlhIH je qanra' puqloD pejatlh} "Why are you all silent? / You, proud warriors, are you afraid? / And you, sons of Kahnrah, speak up!" This usage of {je} is implicitly conjoining two nouns, namely {tlhIH} (referring to {SuvwI'pu' Hem}), and {tlhIH} (referring to {qanra' puqloD}). It's a bit complicated but It mirrors the English "you... and you", with other things in between. There are a number of places in the paq'batlh where the English has "And..." and the Klingon doesn't have {'ej...}, or vice versa. But this is fine when the meaning is clear. Translation isn't always so exact and literal, and involves other things like what flows better in each language. -- De'vID
paq'batlh:
{qatlh Sutamchu' tlhIH / SuvwI'pu' Hem boghIjlu''a' / tlhIH je qanra' puqloD pejatlh} "Why are you all silent? / You, proud warriors, are you afraid? / And you, sons of Kahnrah, speak up!" De'vID: This usage of {je} is implicitly conjoining two nouns, namely {tlhIH} (referring to {SuvwI'pu' Hem}), and {tlhIH} (referring to {qanra' puqloD}). It's a bit complicated but It mirrors the English "you... and you", with other things in between.
So, this means that in the {tlhIH je qanra' puqloD pejatlh} there's an elided {tlhIH} before the {tlhIH} which is written. And so this means, that (from now on) we *can* use the conjunction {je} "and" after just one noun, as long as the elided one is clear from context. Interesting.. Very interesting.. (three thinking emoji here) -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 at 13:14, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
paq'batlh:
{qatlh Sutamchu' tlhIH / SuvwI'pu' Hem boghIjlu''a' / tlhIH je qanra' puqloD pejatlh} "Why are you all silent? / You, proud warriors, are you afraid? / And you, sons of Kahnrah, speak up!" De'vID: This usage of {je} is implicitly conjoining two nouns, namely {tlhIH} (referring to {SuvwI'pu' Hem}), and {tlhIH} (referring to {qanra' puqloD}). It's a bit complicated but It mirrors the English "you... and you", with other things in between.
So, this means that in the {tlhIH je qanra' puqloD pejatlh} there's an elided {tlhIH} before the {tlhIH} which is written.
Look again. It's not elided. Both of the conjoined nouns are written. {qatlh Sutamchu'?} "Why are you all silent?" {tlhIH(1), SuvwI'pu' Hem,} "You, proud warriors," {boghIjlu''a'?} "Are you afraid?" {tlhIH(2) je, qanra' puqloD,} "And you, sons of Kahnrah," {pejatlh!} "Speak up!" The conjunction {je} joins {tlhIH(1)} and {tlhIH(2)}. Each of the {tlhIH}s is in apposition with its referent. It's a vocative, {tlhIH, tlhIH je} "You... and you", with other things in between. Kahless is speaking both to a group of warriors and specifically to the sons of Kahnrah. He says "you" (addressing the warriors) and says something, then turns (or narrows his attention) to the sons of Kahnrah, and says "and you" (addressing them) and says something. This mirrors the English version, which does the same thing.
And so this means, that (from now on) we *can* use the conjunction {je} "and" after just one noun, as long as the elided one is clear from context.
No, you can't (or at least there's no evidence that you can). The issue was specifically whether *{tlhIH je} shows that {je} can follow a single noun. But that's not what's happening here. It's conjoining two nouns, as usual. It's just that there are other things in between. It's exactly like saying, "You, Alice, go pick up the pizza. And you, Bob, go get the drinks." You can't say "And you (Bob)" by itself, without the first "You (Alice)". -- De'vID
De'vID:
It's not elided. Both of the conjoined nouns are written. {tlhIH(1), SuvwI'pu' Hem,} "You, proud warriors," {boghIjlu''a'?} "Are you afraid?" {tlhIH(2) je, qanra' puqloD,} "And you, sons of Kahnrah,"
Ok, I can understand this. But again, the nouns being conjoined aren't in the same sentence. They're at different sentences. So, (if I understand this correctly) I can say to a singer: {SoH bItlhIb, bIbomtaHvIS, qoghDu'wIj vIpoSnISmoH}, and then say to another singer {SoH je, bIbomtaHvIS, vIghro'mey HoH ghoghlIj}. The thing I'm wondering though is whether for this to work, on the first sentence we would necessarily need to write the {SoH}, or whether we would only need the second one. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
My read of this is that word roles are assigned within the structure of a sentence, while this example “conjoins” nouns in a structure larger than a sentence. In this case {je} is not a conjunction. It’s an adverb. It’s one of those places where “also” is as good of a translation as “and”, as in the difference between, “I bought an orange and an apple,” vs. “I bought an orange. I also bought an apple,” or “I bought an orange; also an apple.” Basically, if you’ve already parsed your sentence and completed it, but you want to add something the adverbial sense allows you to do that, while the conjunction really needs to be joining nouns that, together, form a plural that functions as a noun in the one sentence. You wouldn’t string together “I bought an orange also an apple.” Klingon has one word {je} for these two different words “and” and “also” in English. The translation could have been equally good as “Also you, sons of Kahnrah”. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Jun 24, 2022, at 8:35 AM, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
It's not elided. Both of the conjoined nouns are written. {tlhIH(1), SuvwI'pu' Hem,} "You, proud warriors," {boghIjlu''a'?} "Are you afraid?" {tlhIH(2) je, qanra' puqloD,} "And you, sons of Kahnrah,"
Ok, I can understand this.
But again, the nouns being conjoined aren't in the same sentence. They're at different sentences.
So, (if I understand this correctly) I can say to a singer: {SoH bItlhIb, bIbomtaHvIS, qoghDu'wIj vIpoSnISmoH}, and then say to another singer {SoH je, bIbomtaHvIS, vIghro'mey HoH ghoghlIj}.
The thing I'm wondering though is whether for this to work, on the first sentence we would necessarily need to write the {SoH}, or whether we would only need the second one.
-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ <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 Fri, 24 Jun 2022 at 14:55, Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com> wrote:
In this case {je} is not a conjunction. It’s an adverb.
In TKD, {je} joins nouns by coming after the final noun. When it follows a verb, it has the adverbial sense of "also, too". This passage did not require change because its grammar was explicable using known rules. The specific issue that was raised was whether {tlhIH je} introduced new grammar. The clarification was that it did not, because {je} is conjoining the immediately preceding {tlhIH} with the {tlhIH} earlier in Kahless' speech.
Basically, if you’ve already parsed your sentence and completed it, but you want to add something the adverbial sense allows you to do that, while the conjunction really needs to be joining nouns that, together, form a plural that functions as a noun in the one sentence.
That might be true in another instance, but it isn't what's happening in this specific passage. Kahless did not address the warriors, complete his sentence, then realised he forgot to address the sons of Kahnrah, and so added them as an afterthought. He was deliberately switching his attention from the warriors to the sons of Kahnrah for rhetorical effect.
The translation could have been equally good as “Also you, sons of Kahnrah”.
This is true, not because it would be a literal translation, but exactly because translations don't always have to be so literal. -- De'vID
De'vID:
If you're wondering this, then you haven't understood what's going on.
I agree; usually it takes time for me to understand what's going on, since as I usually say "when it comes to understanding grammar, I'm an idiot". So, if it's not much trouble, please read again the example which I wrote earlier: SoH bItlhIb, bIbomtaHvIS, qoghDu'wIj vIpoSnISmoH. SoH je, bIbomtaHvIS, vIghro'mey HoH ghoghlIj. you're incompetent, while you're singing, I need to close my ears. And you, while you're singing, your voice kills cats Would you agree that the above example is a correct application of the paq'batlh sentence(s) use of {je}? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 at 10:42, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
If you're wondering this, then you haven't understood what's going on.
I agree; usually it takes time for me to understand what's going on, since as I usually say "when it comes to understanding grammar, I'm an idiot".
The issue isn't one of grammar. The issue is that you're treating every Klingon sentence written by Dr. Okrand as if it should be an example of grammatical, normal, standard prose that one would find in a textbook, and which should somehow illustrate a grammatical rule. The text of the paq'batlh is related to a libretto for an opera. In this particular passage, Kahless is making a plea to the warriors of Qam-Chee, including the sons of Kahnrah. The original lines, in English, have Kahless speaking first to the warriors, then switching his attention to the sons of Kahnrah. That's the constraint that Dr. Okrand had to work with. In this context, Dr. Okrand confirmed that this passage was fine as it was written, and that the {je} conjoined the two {tlhIH}s. -- De'vID
On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 at 14:36, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
It's not elided. Both of the conjoined nouns are written. {tlhIH(1), SuvwI'pu' Hem,} "You, proud warriors," {boghIjlu''a'?} "Are you afraid?" {tlhIH(2) je, qanra' puqloD,} "And you, sons of Kahnrah,"
Ok, I can understand this.
But again, the nouns being conjoined aren't in the same sentence. They're at different sentences.
They *are* in the same sentence. Ignoring the appositives, that sentence is {tlhIH tlhIH je}, a vocative (an exclamation). A: {qatlh Sutamchu'?} "Why are you all silent?" B1: {tlhIH(1), SuvwI'pu' Hem,} "You, proud warriors," C: {boghIjlu''a'?} "Are you afraid?" B2: {tlhIH(2) je, qanra' puqloD,} "And you, sons of Kahnrah," D: {pejatlh!} "Speak up!" There are four sentences here: A, B, C, and D. Sentence B gets interrupted by sentence C, and then resumes. There is no new grammar here. I repeat: there is no new grammar here. The fact that sometimes, when a person is speaking, they'll interrupt something they're saying mid-sentence, say something else, and then resume the original sentence, is not something that can or needs to be formulated into a rule of grammar. It's just a feature of any language. You can do this in English, or in Greek, but you won't find a rule in a grammar textbook book for English or Greek telling you how to do this. So, (if I understand this correctly) I can say to a singer: {SoH bItlhIb,
bIbomtaHvIS, qoghDu'wIj vIpoSnISmoH}, and then say to another singer {SoH je, bIbomtaHvIS, vIghro'mey HoH ghoghlIj}.
The thing I'm wondering though is whether for this to work, on the first sentence we would necessarily need to write the {SoH}, or whether we would only need the second one.
If you're wondering this, then you haven't understood what's going on. The entire point is that there is no new grammar here. {je} still conjoins two (or more) nouns by coming at the end. -- De'vID
De'vID:
A: {qatlh Sutamchu'?} "Why are you all silent?" B1: {tlhIH(1), SuvwI'pu' Hem,} "You, proud warriors," C: {boghIjlu''a'?} "Are you afraid?" B2: {tlhIH(2) je, qanra' puqloD,} "And you, sons of Kahnrah," D: {pejatlh!} "Speak up!"
I'm confused about this. First of all, B1 is a vocative expression of C and B2 is a vocative expression of D. They are different sentences. But even we somehow accept that B1 and B2 are parts of the same sentence, we get this: tlhIH, SuvwI'pu' Hem, tlhIH je, qanra' puqloD I don't understand how the apposition qanra' puqloD can come after je. My understanding is that je ends the whole noun phrase. Therefore, if we want to connect an apposition to a noun phrase inside the je phrase, we should put it before je: tlhIH, SuvwI'pu' Hem, tlhIH, qanra' puqloD je I add parentheses around the noun phrases: (tlhIH, SuvwI'pu' Hem) (tlhIH, qanra' puqloD) je I think this is obviously allowed. However, if we move the second apposition after je, the second noun phrase stops, then comes je and then the noun phrase continues. This just seems odd to me. Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio ------- Original Message ------- On Friday, June 24th, 2022 at 19.36, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 at 14:36, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
It's not elided. Both of the conjoined nouns are written. {tlhIH(1), SuvwI'pu' Hem,} "You, proud warriors," {boghIjlu''a'?} "Are you afraid?"
{tlhIH(2) je, qanra' puqloD,} "And you, sons of Kahnrah,"
Ok, I can understand this.
But again, the nouns being conjoined aren't in the same sentence. They're at different sentences.
They *are* in the same sentence. Ignoring the appositives, that sentence is {tlhIH tlhIH je}, a vocative (an exclamation).
A: {qatlh Sutamchu'?} "Why are you all silent?" B1: {tlhIH(1), SuvwI'pu' Hem,} "You, proud warriors," C: {boghIjlu''a'?} "Are you afraid?" B2: {tlhIH(2) je, qanra' puqloD,} "And you, sons of Kahnrah," D: {pejatlh!} "Speak up!"
There are four sentences here: A, B, C, and D. Sentence B gets interrupted by sentence C, and then resumes.
There is no new grammar here. I repeat: there is no new grammar here.
The fact that sometimes, when a person is speaking, they'll interrupt something they're saying mid-sentence, say something else, and then resume the original sentence, is not something that can or needs to be formulated into a rule of grammar. It's just a feature of any language. You can do this in English, or in Greek, but you won't find a rule in a grammar textbook book for English or Greek telling you how to do this.
So, (if I understand this correctly) I can say to a singer: {SoH bItlhIb, bIbomtaHvIS, qoghDu'wIj vIpoSnISmoH}, and then say to another singer {SoH je, bIbomtaHvIS, vIghro'mey HoH ghoghlIj}.
The thing I'm wondering though is whether for this to work, on the first sentence we would necessarily need to write the {SoH}, or whether we would only need the second one.
If you're wondering this, then you haven't understood what's going on.
The entire point is that there is no new grammar here. {je} still conjoins two (or more) nouns by coming at the end.
--
De'vID
On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 at 02:47, Iikka Hauhio <fergusq@protonmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
A: {qatlh Sutamchu'?} "Why are you all silent?" B1: {tlhIH(1), SuvwI'pu' Hem,} "You, proud warriors," C: {boghIjlu''a'?} "Are you afraid?" B2: {tlhIH(2) je, qanra' puqloD,} "And you, sons of Kahnrah," D: {pejatlh!} "Speak up!"
I'm confused about this. First of all, B1 is a vocative expression of C and B2 is a vocative expression of D. They are different sentences. But even we somehow accept that B1 and B2 are parts of the same sentence, we get this:
*tlhIH, SuvwI'pu' Hem, tlhIH je, qanra' puqloD*
I don't understand how the apposition *qanra' puqloD* can come after *je*.
TKD: "The conjunctions joining nouns come after the final noun." The joined nouns are {tlhIH} and {tlhIH}. It seems to me like a valid interpretation for {je} to come after the second {tlhIH}, before the apposition.
My understanding is that *je* ends the whole noun phrase. Therefore, if we want to connect an apposition to a noun phrase inside the *je *phrase, we should put it before *je*:
*tlhIH, SuvwI'pu' Hem, tlhIH, qanra' puqloD je*
I add parentheses around the noun phrases:
*(tlhIH, SuvwI'pu' Hem) (tlhIH, qanra' puqloD) je*
I think this is obviously allowed.
I think it's allowed, but I don't think it's obvious. And in particular I don't think it's obvious that it has the same meaning.
However, if we move the second apposition after *je*, the second noun phrase stops, then comes *je* and then the noun phrase continues. This just seems odd to me.
Let me turn this around. Suppose that the lines had been: {qatlh Sutamchu' tlhIH / SuvwI'pu' Hem boghIjlu''a' / tlhIH qanra' puqloD je pejatlh} It's *this* sentence that seems odd to me. Doesn't it seem odd to you that {tlhIH qanra' puqloD je} doesn't mean "you and sons of Kahnrah" here? And since the {je} is closer to {qanra' puqloD}, wouldn't the English translation be more like this: "Why are you all silent? / You, proud warriors, are you afraid? / You, sons of Kahnrah also, speak up!" That is, instead of having the rhetorical structure of "you... and you...", it would instead be "proud warriors... and sons of Kahnrah", which has a different emphasis. The passage from the paq'batlh is a fairly complex sentence (or set of sentences), in spoken Klingon, addressing two groups of people. There are two possibilities: 1. The grammar is correct, and normal, for the intended meaning, namely, addressing "you... and you" with the appositions clarifying each "you". 2. Your suggestion is the correct ("textbook") grammar, but Kahless moved the {je} to emphaise you.. and you" (rather than "proud warriors... and sons of Kahnrah"). (Recall TKD: "when Klingon is actually spoken these rules are sometimes broken.") I don't think it makes a practical difference which one is correct. I think it's perfectly logical and reasonable to expect the construction to be the way you suggested. But I also don't think that language always works according to logic. -- De'vID
On Jun 24, 2022, at 8:47 PM, Iikka Hauhio <fergusq@protonmail.com> wrote:
I don't understand how the apposition qanra' puqloD can come after je. My understanding is that je ends the whole noun phrase
I don’t consider apposition to be an example of “a” noun phrase. I think of it as *two* noun phrases that simultaneously fulfill the same role in a sentence. jIl bab je, ghojwI'pu'… Jill and Bob, the students… -- ghunchu'wI'
participants (5)
-
Alan Anderson -
D qunen'oS -
De'vID -
Iikka Hauhio -
Will Martin