There is something which doesn't sit with me so well, in the simultaneous use of -meH with -pu' or -ta'. Lets say I write: {vIghro' tIQ vIje'meH, HuchwIj Hoch vI'anmoHpu'} In order to buy the ancient cat, I went bankrupt. How would this be any different from writing: {vIghro' tIQ vIje'ta'meH, HuchwIj Hoch vI'anmoHpu'} ? First of all, it sounds weird to say {vIje'ta'meH} "in order that I have bought"; but that aside, is there any reason to use a -pu' or -ta' on the -meH part of the sentence, if I'm to use them in the part of the sentence that comes after the -meH ? Isn't the meaning the same in either case ? ~ changan qIj
On 3/13/2019 10:03 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
There is something which doesn't sit with me so well, in the simultaneous use of -meH with -pu' or -ta'.
Lets say I write:
{vIghro' tIQ vIje'meH, HuchwIj Hoch vI'anmoHpu'}
In order to buy the ancient cat, I went bankrupt.
How would this be any different from writing:
{vIghro' tIQ vIje'ta'meH, HuchwIj Hoch vI'anmoHpu'} ?
First of all, it sounds weird to say {vIje'ta'meH} "in order that I have bought"; but that aside, is there any reason to use a -pu' or -ta' on the -meH part of the sentence, if I'm to use them in the part of the sentence that comes after the -meH ? Isn't the meaning the same in either case ?
*je'meH* isn't just an action, it's a /purpose./ I'm not sure what having a completed purpose means. I know what completing having a purpose means, but that's something different. I wouldn't put perfective here unless I had a very good reason I could articulate. I'm not sure how *'an* /waste /and *'anmoH*/sacrifice/ are related. Shouldn't *Huch vI'an* mean /I waste money?/ And if so, shouldn't *Huch vI'anmoH* mean either /I cause money to waste (something)/ or /I cause (someone unspecified) to waste money?/ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 3/13/2019 10:42 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
I wouldn't put perfective here unless I had
a very good reason I could articulate.
What do you mean by that ?
Just what I say. Your purpose, when it was a purpose, wasn't completed, so no perfective. Unless you can explain exactly why you think perfective is required, I don't think it is.
SuStel:
I'm not sure how 'an waste and 'anmoH
sacrifice are related.
I think 'an means "be a waste", while 'anmoH means "to sacrifice".
That's not how *'an* is defined on the new words list. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I don’t find it quite as odd as Sustel does. I read {vIghro' tIQ vIje'ta'meH} as “In order for me to have (successfully) purchased the ancient cat”, although I probably wouldn’t have used an aspect suffix myself. E.g. providing some context: In order for me to have purchased the cat, I would have needed to use a credit card (which I didn’t have with me at the time). BTW, in Russian you can use the perfective with negative verbs in the past tense - even when you haven’t completed your purpose - though under specific circumstances. I found a useful brief overview online at http://www.russianlessons.net/grammar/verbs_aspect.php . Here’s what it says WRT negative verbs: Using the perfective implies that the action was completed successfully, unless used in the negative (see note below). So for example saying that ‘He took an exam on Friday’, if ‘took’ is used in the perfective it implies that he passed the exam. Using the imperfective would imply that the result is unknown, or he didn’t pass. [Or that he never took the exam at all. Voragh] […] Aspects in the negative Using the negative with perfective verbs indicates the person failed to do that action. Using the imperfective will normally simply mean that it didn’t happen. Я не позвонила - I failed to phone (perfective) (but I was expected to) Я не звонила - I didn’t phone. (imperfective) There are many more subtleties to the proper use of aspect and tense in Russian which, trust me, are difficult for foreigners to master like a native. Most never quite do; I’ve been at it for over forty years. But back to Klingon… I could find no examples of {-ta’meH} or {-pu’meH}. In fact, the only instance of a Type 7 suffix used on the same verb with {-meH} I know of is: molor vuQlu' tu'taHmeH chalqach toS qeylISvam legh neH Molor is amused, he climbs a watch tower to see this Kahless. (PB) --Voragh From: SuStel On 3/13/2019 10:42 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote: SuStel:
I wouldn't put perfective here unless I had
a very good reason I could articulate.
What do you mean by that ? Just what I say. Your purpose, when it was a purpose, wasn't completed, so no perfective. Unless you can explain exactly why you think perfective is required, I don't think it is.
On 3/13/2019 11:37 AM, Steven Boozer wrote:
I don’t find it quite as odd as Sustel does. I read {vIghro' tIQ vIje'ta'meH} as “In order for me to have (successfully) purchased the ancient cat”, although I probably wouldn’t have used an aspect suffix myself. E.g. providing some context: In order for me to have purchased the cat, I would have needed to use a credit card (which I didn’t have with me at the time).
It's not the perfective on the purpose clause I find odd, it's the situation that the sentence is describing that didn't seem to match the perfective. /In order to buy the ancient cat, I sacrificed all my money./ The sentence is being uttered at a point after the money is sacrificed — the wasting is completed. But in the act of sacrificing, the purpose was to buy, not to already have bought, a cat. Hence, *vIghro' **vIje'meH Huch vI'anmoHpu' *(simplified for brevity). Your sentence presents an irrealis: *vIghro' vIje'ta'meH Huch vI'anmoH**pu'*/In order to have bought the cat, I [would have] sacrificed money./ I don't know that this is going to be interpreted as rrealis by Klingons; the only irrealis we really know anything about is formed with *net jalchugh.* You might get it by saying something like *vIghro' vIje'ta' net jalchugh, vIje'meH Huch vI'anmoHpu'*/If I had bought the cat, to buy it I would have sacrificed money./ I think trying to put perfective on the purpose clause here is to attempt time travel, where my current action causes an already-completed action. If you can say *vIghro' vIje'meH Huch vI'anmoHpu'*/to buy the cat I sacrificed money,/ and you apparently can, then what exactly does adding perfective to the purpose clause do? Maybe *vIje'ta'meH* means /so that I close the deal?/ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:03 PM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
I think trying to put perfective on the purpose clause here is to attempt time travel, where my current action causes an already-completed action. If you can say *vIghro' vIje'meH Huch vI'anmoHpu'** to buy the cat I sacrificed money,* and you apparently can, then what exactly does adding perfective to the purpose clause do? Maybe *vIje'ta'meH* means *so that I close the deal?*
That's how I'd interpret it. If there had been a lot of haggling, or my credit card kept getting declined, and so I just decided to slam down some cash to get it over with, I think {vIje'ta'meH} would fit perfectly.
This is all I have in my notes about {‘an}: ‘an waste (v) (qep'a' 2018) "as someone sacrifices forces for a certain goal or just wastes one’s resources" (qep'a' 2018) ‘anmoH sacrifice (v) (qep'a' 2018) Does anyone have anything else, for example being used in a sentence by Okrand from the qep’a’? -- Voragh From: mayqel qunen'oS SuStel:
I'm not sure how 'an waste and 'anmoH sacrifice are related.
I think 'an means "be a waste", while 'anmoH means "to sacrifice".
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 10:52 AM Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
This is all I have in my notes about {‘an}:
‘an waste (v) (qep'a' 2018) "as someone sacrifices forces for a certain goal or just wastes one’s resources" (qep'a' 2018)
‘anmoH sacrifice (v) (qep'a' 2018)
Does anyone have anything else, for example being used in a sentence by Okrand from the qep’a’?
-- Voragh
On Facebook, Lieven posted a video where he was talking about some of the new words with Okrand. Okrand glossed {'an} as "be a waste", as a stative verb instead of a transitive one. As for the original question, using {-meH} with {-pu'} or {-ta'} seems like it would mean something like "in order to complete doing something". {paq vIlaDta'meH juHwIjDaq jIratlh.} "I stayed home to complete/finish reading the book." I wanted to make "reading the book" a completed action, so I stayed home. Something like that. It might not translate easily into English but the usage makes sense.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:21 AM nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 10:52 AM Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
This is all I have in my notes about {‘an}:
‘an waste (v) (qep'a' 2018) "as someone sacrifices forces for a certain goal or just wastes one’s resources" (qep'a' 2018)
‘anmoH sacrifice (v) (qep'a' 2018)
Does anyone have anything else, for example being used in a sentence by Okrand from the qep’a’?
-- Voragh
On Facebook, Lieven posted a video where he was talking about some of the new words with Okrand. Okrand glossed {'an} as "be a waste", as a stative verb instead of a transitive one.
Here we go, it's on Youtube. Convenient! https://youtu.be/f2cgPd-TBJE?t=3m49s
On 3/13/2019 11:24 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
Here we go, it's on Youtube. Convenient!
Okay, so the New Words List is wrong. *'an* means /be a waste./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 16:26, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 3/13/2019 11:24 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
Here we go, it's on Youtube. Convenient!
https://youtu.be/f2cgPd-TBJE?t=3m49s
Okay, so the New Words List is wrong. *'an* means *be a waste.*
tetlhvam rang 'Iv? DaH yItI'. -- De'vID
Am 13.03.2019 um 16:24 schrieb nIqolay Q:
On Facebook, Lieven posted a video where he was talking about some of the new words with Okrand. Okrand glossed {'an} as "be a waste", as a stative verb instead of a transitive one.
[...]
Here we go, it's on Youtube. Convenient! https://youtu.be/f2cgPd-TBJE?t=3m49s
For those preferring "quotable facts", there's a summary of the video interview at the Klingon Language Wiki: http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/NewWordsQepa25 {'an} a verb meaning to be a waste as in That's a waste. Okrand: "But it's not like 'I waste the Coca Cola'; you need -moH for that." [...] "I sent him out there knowing he's not going to come back = I sacrificed him. [it's with -moH] because I caused him to be a waste, I caused that to be 'wasteful'." -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de
Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> schrieb am Mi., 13. März 2019, 17:17:
For those preferring "quotable facts", there's a summary of the video interview at the Klingon Language Wiki:
http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/NewWordsQepa25
{'an} a verb meaning to be a waste as in That's a waste.
Okrand: "But it's not like 'I waste the Coca Cola'; you need -moH for that." [...] "I sent him out there knowing he's not going to come back = I sacrificed him. [it's with -moH] because I caused him to be a waste, I caused that to be 'wasteful'."
That page contains the wrong definition in the word list. The interview portion has the correct explanation for how it's used. -- De'vID
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 19:13, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> schrieb am Mi., 13. März 2019, 17:17:
For those preferring "quotable facts", there's a summary of the video interview at the Klingon Language Wiki:
http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/NewWordsQepa25
{'an} a verb meaning to be a waste as in That's a waste.
Okrand: "But it's not like 'I waste the Coca Cola'; you need -moH for that." [...] "I sent him out there knowing he's not going to come back = I sacrificed him. [it's with -moH] because I caused him to be a waste, I caused that to be 'wasteful'."
That page contains the wrong definition in the word list. The interview portion has the correct explanation for how it's used.
chay'!? DaH lughchoH. ;-) -- De'vID
Am 14.03.2019 um 09:00 schrieb De'vID:
That page contains the wrong definition in the word list. The interview portion has the correct explanation for how it's used.
chay'!? DaH lughchoH. ;-)
ngeDqu' tenwalmeyvetlh choHmeH mIw, 'ej nom 'oH choHlaH vay'. Hawai Hol lo'lu', "wiki" 'oS mu' {nom}. ngoDvammo' 'oHvaD wI'qIy ponglu'. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/KlingonLanguageWiki
On 3/13/2019 11:21 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
As for the original question, using {-meH} with {-pu'} or {-ta'} seems like it would mean something like "in order to complete doing something".
{paq vIlaDta'meH juHwIjDaq jIratlh.} "I stayed home to complete/finish reading the book." I wanted to make "reading the book" a completed action, so I stayed home. Something like that. It might not translate easily into English but the usage makes sense.
Seems reasonable to me. *paq vIlaDmeH juHwIjDaq jIratlh */I stay home to read the book/ *paq vIlaDta'meH juHwIjDaq jIratlh */I stay home to finish reading the book/ Though note that, lacking perfective on *jIratlh,* my remaining is not a completed action. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
A verb with {-meH} essentially becomes timeless. It serves to give meaning to a noun or verb that might, itself, have some degree of perfective, but the dependent clause is explaining the purpose of the action or the purpose of the person, place, or thing that is being described by the dependent clause. Think of a verb with {-meH} and the clause it is part of as being like an adjective or an adverb. It describes something about the noun or verb it modifies. If I have a green helmet, I wouldn’t call it a {mIV SuDta’} because, hey, I PAINTED that helmet green and so the color is INTENTIONAL, and I ACCOMPLISHED making that helmet GREEN, so it’s gotta be {mIV SuDta’}… It’s kinda like that. It’s {mIV SuD}. Deal with it. You could build a main clause that could explain the accomplishment of making the helmet green, but greenness has nothing to do with the perfective, when you are simply noting the greenness of an object. A {ghojmeH taj} isn’t a {ghojlI’meH taj}, even though there may be an intentional mission for which one is learning to use the knife, and one is progressing toward that mission. Put that kind of nuanced meaning into the main clause, not the purpose clause. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Mar 13, 2019, at 10:42 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SuStel:
I wouldn't put perfective here unless I had a very good reason I could articulate.
What do you mean by that ?
SuStel:
I'm not sure how 'an waste and 'anmoH sacrifice are related.
I think 'an means "be a waste", while 'anmoH means "to sacrifice".
~ changan qIj
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org>
On Mar 13, 2019, at 10:31 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
I'm not sure how 'an waste and 'anmoH sacrifice are related.
They are related through an accident of etymology. Don’t try to analyze {'anmoH} too hard as {'an} + {-moH}. Trying to take it apart implies another unattested meaning of {'an}. It's a little like {lo'laH} that way. -- ghunchu'wI'
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 13, 2019, at 10:03, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote: {vIghro' tIQ vIje'meH, HuchwIj Hoch vI'anmoHpu'} In order to buy the ancient cat, I went bankrupt.
How would this be any different from writing:
{vIghro' tIQ vIje'ta'meH, HuchwIj Hoch vI'anmoHpu'} ?
The English translations seem awkward, but the distinction in Klingon makes sense to me. In the second one, you are affirming/emphasising that you did, indeed, buy the cat. Whereas in the first one it’s kinda left ambiguous. —jevreH
To me, {vIghro’ tIQ vIje’ta’meH, HuchwIj Hoch vI’anmoHpu’} sounds like I’ve already purchased the ancient cat, and then, mysteriously, I’ve paid money. The double perfective just seems weird. I have sacrificed money (burning it on an alter, perhaps?). Toward what purpose had I sacrificed the money? I sacrificed it toward the mission of having already accomplished feeding the cat. Or buying it. I think it would be much clearer for you to just say {qatlh Huch vIHutlh? vIghro’ tIQvam vIje’ta’.} I assume you’d be smiling, proudly, with perhaps just a hint of mania behind the eyes. … at which point I would smile and raise my hands in a non-threatening, defensive posture and back slowly out of the room while replying, {vIghro’ tIQlIj yItIv. Qel QaQ DaQaHlaHbogh vISov…} charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Mar 13, 2019, at 11:22 AM, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com> wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 13, 2019, at 10:03, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote:
{vIghro' tIQ vIje'meH, HuchwIj Hoch vI'anmoHpu'} In order to buy the ancient cat, I went bankrupt.
How would this be any different from writing:
{vIghro' tIQ vIje'ta'meH, HuchwIj Hoch vI'anmoHpu'} ?
The English translations seem awkward, but the distinction in Klingon makes sense to me. In the second one, you are affirming/emphasising that you did, indeed, buy the cat. Whereas in the first one it’s kinda left ambiguous.
—jevreH _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Man am I rusty, or sleep deprived or something. Jeeze. vIghro’ tIQlIj yItIv. DuQaHlaHbogh Qel QaQ vISov. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Mar 13, 2019, at 11:46 AM, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
To me, {vIghro’ tIQ vIje’ta’meH, HuchwIj Hoch vI’anmoHpu’} sounds like I’ve already purchased the ancient cat, and then, mysteriously, I’ve paid money. The double perfective just seems weird. I have sacrificed money (burning it on an alter, perhaps?). Toward what purpose had I sacrificed the money? I sacrificed it toward the mission of having already accomplished feeding the cat. Or buying it.
I think it would be much clearer for you to just say {qatlh Huch vIHutlh? vIghro’ tIQvam vIje’ta’.} I assume you’d be smiling, proudly, with perhaps just a hint of mania behind the eyes.
… at which point I would smile and raise my hands in a non-threatening, defensive posture and back slowly out of the room while replying, {vIghro’ tIQlIj yItIv. Qel QaQ DaQaHlaHbogh vISov…}
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Mar 13, 2019, at 11:22 AM, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com <mailto:jmclark85@gmail.com>> wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 13, 2019, at 10:03, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote:
{vIghro' tIQ vIje'meH, HuchwIj Hoch vI'anmoHpu'} In order to buy the ancient cat, I went bankrupt.
How would this be any different from writing:
{vIghro' tIQ vIje'ta'meH, HuchwIj Hoch vI'anmoHpu'} ?
The English translations seem awkward, but the distinction in Klingon makes sense to me. In the second one, you are affirming/emphasising that you did, indeed, buy the cat. Whereas in the first one it’s kinda left ambiguous.
—jevreH _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org <mailto: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
participants (9)
-
Alan Anderson -
De'vID -
Jeffrey Clark -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin