Saghel vIneH I want to ask you tawDaq bIyIt you walk at the street 'ej pay', *dog* Dalegh and suddenly you see a dog wa' qablIj mIllogh ghaj *dog*vam, milloghvamDaq turmIqDaq vuj, 'ej mIlloghDaq mu'qaDmey bachtaH this dog has a picture of you, on which it pisses, and at the same time it curses you *dog*vamvo', mIlloghvam DatlhaplaHbe', 'ej SuQumlaHbe' SoH *dog*vam. you can't take that picture from the dog, and you can't communicate with it either 'ach, *dog*vam Dalegh SoH neH; leghlaH pagh latlh but only *you* can see this dog; noone else can ghoplIjDaq, nISwI' tu'lu'.. at your hand there is a disruptor *dog*vam DangabmoH pagh *dog*vam DangabmoHbe' ('ej *dog*vam Dalon); wIv DawIvbogh yIngu'. do you vaporize that dog, or do you leave it alone and just continue walking ? ~ m. qunen'oS I interrupted my ancient cat story to post this
jIlIj.. I forgot.. DaleghlaH; 'e' Sov *dog*vam, nISwI' Daghaj; 'e' Sov je *dog*vam, 'a SaHbe' 'ej mevbe'.. the dog knows that you see it, and it knows that you have a disruptor too, but it doesn't care, and it refuses to stop.. ~ m. qunen'oS these are the questions that really matter
Just so you know, there are some who would argue that you can’t have two different {‘e’} pronouns pointing back to the same previous sentence. I’m sure there are also some who think this is fine. I’m not telling you what you can’t do. I’m just suggesting that this might not be as normal and unexceptional as you think it is. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 29, 2019, at 12:41 PM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
jIlIj.. I forgot..
DaleghlaH; 'e' Sov *dog*vam, nISwI' Daghaj; 'e' Sov je *dog*vam, 'a SaHbe' 'ej mevbe'.. the dog knows that you see it, and it knows that you have a disruptor too, but it doesn't care, and it refuses to stop..
~ m. qunen'oS these are the questions that really matter _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
But he isn’t doing that. This isn’t a chain of SAOs; it’s two independent SAOs. It’s not “the dog knows that you have a disruptor that you see it.” It’s “the dog knows that you see it. The dog also knows that you have a disruptor.” As for the actual question in the original post, qatlh muSujnIS ghu'vam?
On May 30, 2019, at 09:03, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
Just so you know, there are some who would argue that you can’t have two different {‘e’} pronouns pointing back to the same previous sentence. I’m sure there are also some who think this is fine. I’m not telling you what you can’t do. I’m just suggesting that this might not be as normal and unexceptional as you think it is.
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 29, 2019, at 12:41 PM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
jIlIj.. I forgot..
DaleghlaH; 'e' Sov *dog*vam, nISwI' Daghaj; 'e' Sov je *dog*vam, 'a SaHbe' 'ej mevbe'.. the dog knows that you see it, and it knows that you have a disruptor too, but it doesn't care, and it refuses to stop..
~ m. qunen'oS these are the questions that really matter _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list 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
On May 30, 2019, at 10:07, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
But he isn’t doing that. This isn’t a chain of SAOs
Oops, reading your message again I don’t think you were talking about a chain of SAOs, but two 'e' pronouns referring to the same sentence. But what he wrote is still not what you’re suggesting: the two 'e' pronouns each refer to different sentences.
Hugh:
But what he wrote is still not what you’re suggesting: the two 'e' pronouns each refer to different sentences.
True; they are two different sentences.. 1st sentence: DaleghlaH; 'e' Sov *dog*vam, 2nd sentence: nISwI' Daghaj; 'e' Sov je *dog*vam Other than that.. QInlIj yIlIj; mab'a' chu' mughlI'ghachwIj vItaghqa'; qen 'e' vIwuq. f** this message; I decided to continue my translation of the new testament. ~ m. qunen'oS
take this: QInlIj yIlIj; mab'a' chu' mughlI'ghachwIj vItaghqa'; qen 'e' vIwuq. and replace with this: QInvam yIlIj; mab'a' chu' mughlI'ghachwIj vItaghqa'; qen 'e' vIwuq. jagh yIbuStaH ! ~ nI'ghma'
Sorry. I read too quickly and was thrown by the rather unconventional use of a semicolon separating the two sentences of SAO, and the conjunction, used in its “also” function. I learned SAO before we used any punctuation when writing in Klingon, and I’m used to either seeing no punctuation, or periods for each of the four sentences, or periods for the second sentence in SAO with no punctuation at the end of the first sentence of the SAOs. Note that it’s not two sentences. It’s four. In English, we translate it as two, but in Klingon, it is four. One does not usually end a sentence with a semicolon. DaleghlaH. ‘e’ Sov *dog*vam. nISwI’ Daghaj. ‘e’ Sov je *dog*vam. Apologies for my misunderstanding. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 30, 2019, at 12:10 PM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Hugh:
But what he wrote is still not what you’re suggesting: the two 'e' pronouns each refer to different sentences.
True; they are two different sentences..
1st sentence: DaleghlaH; 'e' Sov *dog*vam, 2nd sentence: nISwI' Daghaj; 'e' Sov je *dog*vam
Other than that..
QInlIj yIlIj; mab'a' chu' mughlI'ghachwIj vItaghqa'; qen 'e' vIwuq. f** this message; I decided to continue my translation of the new testament.
~ m. qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 5/30/2019 1:34 PM, Will Martin wrote:
Note that it’s not two sentences. It’s four. In English, we translate it as two, but in Klingon, it is four. One does not usually end a sentence with a semicolon.
It's four sentences. It's also two sentences. A sentence-as-object is both one and two sentences. It is what TKD calls a complex sentence, as opposed to a basic sentence. *jIpuj 'e' vItem.* There are two sentences here: *jIpuj* and *'e' vItem.* But a sentence is a structure that stands alone and contains a complete idea. The first sentence, *jIpuj,* is not an idea I'm trying to convey. It's the setup to the real idea, the context I need to make it work. This is all exactly the same in English. /I deny that I am weak./ It consists of two sentences: /I deny that/ and /I am weak./ We recognize that each is a standalone sentence grammatically, but we also recognize that /I deny that I am weak/ is also a sentence. Just as in Klingon, we don't bother to punctuate the two component sentences. The only difference between the Klingon and the English, besides the reversed syntax order, is that Klingon grammarians call *'e'* a pronoun and English grammarians, describing this particular function, call /that/ a conjunction. One does not usually end a sentence with a semicolon, but one does separate two sentences with a semicolon when one is setting up a relationship between them. The first "sentence" will "end" with a semicolon. /I ate too much; I can't stand up./ Two related sentences, put together into a single sentence with a semicolon to form a single idea out of two. The first of the related sentences ends in a semicolon. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
I recommend to mayqel that he not separate the two sentences of a sentence-as-object with semicolons.
I understand everything you wrote, and I agree. But there is something, I started to wonder. If we have a simple sao, then there is no confusion in omitting punctuation before the {'e'}. But if we have an adverb, or a time stamp before the {'e'}, then wouldn't it be clearer if we added some punctuation before that adverb or time stamp ? for example: wagh vIghro'mey tIQ 'e' wISov we know that ancient cats are expensive wagh vIghro'mey tIQ reH 'e' wISov we always know that ancient cats are expensive Isn't it better to have some punctuation before the {reH} ? And if yes, which punctuation ? ~ m. qunen'oS
On 5/30/2019 2:33 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
If we have a simple sao, then there is no confusion in omitting punctuation before the {'e'}.
But if we have an adverb, or a time stamp before the {'e'}, then wouldn't it be clearer if we added some punctuation before that adverb or time stamp ?
for example:
wagh vIghro'mey tIQ 'e' wISov we know that ancient cats are expensive
wagh vIghro'mey tIQ reH 'e' wISov we always know that ancient cats are expensive
Isn't it better to have some punctuation before the {reH} ? And if yes, which punctuation ?
I don't see that it's better. If I /had/ to use punctuation, I'd use a comma. It's the least separating of all of them, and is often interpreted as merely a pause. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
ghItlhpu' mayqel, jatlh:
If we have a simple sao, then there is no confusion in omitting punctuation before the {'e'}. But if we have an adverb, or a time stamp before the {'e'}, then wouldn't it be clearer if we added some punctuation before that adverb or time stamp ?
Why should it? Adverbs and time stamps appear invariably (with the sole exceptions of {neH} and {jay'}) at the beginning of clauses. If you're reading a sentence and you run into a time stamp or an adverb that isn't {neH} or {jay'}, then you already know you've reached a new clause, in just the same way as you know you've reached a new clause when you hit {'e'}. One could probably concoct an example of a construction where a noun phrase is ambiguously acting as either a subject of the subordinated clause or as a time stamp of the {'e'}-clause, but I imagine examples where genuine ambiguity arises would be very few and far between. QeS 'utlh
On May 31, 2019, at 05:56, Rhona Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com> wrote:
One could probably concoct an example of a construction where a noun phrase is ambiguously acting as either a subject of the subordinated clause or as a time stamp of the {'e'}-clause, but I imagine examples where genuine ambiguity arises would be very few and far between.
I agree that this is unlikely to happen with any frequency but concocting pathological examples is a hobby of mine. For this case one needn’t look much further than my favorite ambiguity source, {wej}: {jagh yo' muvHa'pu' 'op Dujmey. muchollI' vagh. muHIv wej 'e' vItu'.} Here’s another with {DaH}: {labbeH DaH 'e' Sov QumpIn.}
Homophones permit ambiguity wherever they appear. They aren’t good examples of a potential for ambiguity due to the grammar. -- ghunchu'wI'
On May 31, 2019, at 8:42 AM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
On May 31, 2019, at 05:56, Rhona Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com> wrote:
One could probably concoct an example of a construction where a noun phrase is ambiguously acting as either a subject of the subordinated clause or as a time stamp of the {'e'}-clause, but I imagine examples where genuine ambiguity arises would be very few and far between.
I agree that this is unlikely to happen with any frequency but concocting pathological examples is a hobby of mine. For this case one needn’t look much further than my favorite ambiguity source, {wej}: [...] Here’s another with {DaH}: [...]
On May 31, 2019, at 09:21, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
Homophones permit ambiguity wherever they appear. They aren’t good examples of a potential for ambiguity due to the grammar.
Good point. The grammar is still a factor with homophone ambiguity, though, as it needs to allow multiple homophones that are different parts of speech in the same position. In both of the examples I gave, the homophones could have either been a noun acting as the subject of the sentence {'e'} refers to, or an adverbial modifying the sentence whose object is {'e'}. I think even without involving a homophone one would need to exploit the same positional ambiguity, e.g. {Dor Hoghvam 'e' vIHaj} - “I dread that this week ends” OR “This week I dread that it (some other time period or event) ends” I can’t think of other verbs besides {Dor} that can take a noun phrase that can act as a time stamp as their subject off the top of my head. Or maybe an ambiguity involving a verb of speech marking a quotation: {jatlh naH jajmeywIj 'e' vIQoy} - “I heard her say ‘my youth’” OR “In my youth I heard her speak”
On 5/31/2019 10:47 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
I can’t think of other verbs besides {Dor} that can take a noun phrase that can act as a time stamp as their subject off the top of my head.
Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 5/31/2019 11:21 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
On May 31, 2019, at 10:00, SuStel<sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
QaQ jajvam va, vangmeH wot vIbuSqu'taHmo' Doth wot vIlIjchu'pu'!
http://klingonska.org/canon/1997-06-29d-news.txt /Though they both can be translated "today," DaHjaj and jajvam are not quite interchangeable. As the time element in a sentence, DaHjaj (and not jajvam) is used:// / /DaHjaj romuluSngan vIHoHpu' "today I killed a Romulan" (DaHjaj "today," romuluSngan "Romulan," vIHoHpu' "I have killed him/her")/ (Notice, unbelievers, the perfective used on an event that was completed during the stated time expression, not before, and which is translated into English as both simple past tense and present perfect tense!) /As the subject of a sentence, on the other hand, jajvam is more typically found:/ /nI' jajvam "this day is long" (nI' "[it] is long [in duration], jajvam "this day")/ /though DaHjaj is not impossible: / /nI' DaHjaj "today is long" (nI' "[it] is long [in duration], DaHjaj "today")/ Ah, but wait! KGT: /The son of a Klingon is a man the day he can first hold a blade./ *wa' jaj 'etlh 'uchchoHlaH tlhIngan puqloD; jajvetlh loD nen moj.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 5/30/2019 11:12 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
On May 30, 2019, at 10:07, Daniel Dadap<daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
But he isn’t doing that. This isn’t a chain of SAOs Oops, reading your message again I don’t think you were talking about a chain of SAOs, but two 'e' pronouns referring to the same sentence. But what he wrote is still not what you’re suggesting: the two 'e' pronouns each refer to different sentences.
I think charghwI' was thrown by the odd punctuation. *DaleghlaH; 'e' Sov /dog/vam, nISwI' Daghaj; 'e' Sov je /dog/vam* I would have punctuated this like so: *DaleghlaH 'e' Sov /dog/vam; nISwI' Daghaj 'e' Sov je /dog/vam.* I recommend to mayqel that he not separate the two sentences of a sentence-as-object with semicolons. The semicolon is used to show that two separate sentences are related. In the Klingon SAO, the two sentences aren't just related; the first sentence is actually dependent on the second sentence. The first sentence may not even be true, depending on what the second sentence says about it. (E.g., *jIpuj 'e' vItem*/I deny that I'm weak./) The relationship between sentences in an SAO is much closer than a semicolon would suggest. The semicolon is also a stronger separator than a comma. If you've got a sentence of the form WWWW; XXXX, YYYY; ZZZZ. then a normal reading would suggest you've got three ideas here. Idea 1 is WWWW, idea 2 is XXXX, YYYY, and idea 3 is ZZZZ. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
I recommend to mayqel that he not separate the two sentences of a sentence-as-object with semicolons. The semicolon is used to show that two separate sentences are related.
Oh, this is beautiful ! Thank you for telling me this ! SuStel:
The semicolon is also a stronger separator than a comma.
I didn't know that ! So, would you agree with the following statement ? There are only three separators: dot comma and semicolon, and from weakest to strongest, they are ranked as: comma, semicolon, dot ~ m. qunen'oS I don't know how you call the dot in english
On 5/30/2019 12:36 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
The semicolon is also a stronger separator than a comma. I didn't know that ! So, would you agree with the following statement ?
There are only three separators: dot comma and semicolon, and from weakest to strongest, they are ranked as:
comma, semicolon, dot
There are other separators, like the em dash and en dash. I wouldn't try to make an exhaustive list. But your order is correct.
I don't know how you call the dot in english
Period or full stop. It's usually called a /period/ in the US and usually a /full stop/ in the UK, I think. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (6)
-
Alan Anderson -
Daniel Dadap -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Rhona Fenwick -
SuStel -
Will Martin