[102886] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Religious terminology
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Will Martin)
Fri Dec 4 13:25:16 2015
From: Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:25:00 -0500
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cKiei6BOPW2+VXNUWa4Ea=L9_MK5TYRmyYbf3aYt_cLWg@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============6075591849952539077==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B495A226-7B4D-4BD2-BFC2-B64C5A926C1E"
--Apple-Mail=_B495A226-7B4D-4BD2-BFC2-B64C5A926C1E
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
qaQaHlaHmo=E2=80=99 jIbel =E2=80=98ach ghaytanHa=E2=80=99 <<-=E2=80=98e=E2=
=80=99>> vIQIjta=E2=80=99.
The noun suffix {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} can be confusing and even =
controversial because it is used several different unrelated ways. =
It=E2=80=99s use in relative clauses to clarify which noun participates =
in both the relative and main clauses is one of the most =
straightforward, easy to understand uses. It=E2=80=99s also the most =
recent usage developed. I think it was invented on this mailing list and =
later approved by Okrand. I don=E2=80=99t think he came up with the =
idea.
The other clear-cut usage is with explicit subject nouns in =E2=80=9Cto =
be=E2=80=9D sentences, like:
tlhIngan ghaH =E2=80=98avwI=E2=80=99=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99.
The guard is a Klingon.
We can guess about the reason that {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} is required =
for nouns in this position of this kind of sentence, but it doesn=E2=80=99=
t really matter. It=E2=80=99s just a rule. You have to follow it. =
Forever. Every time. Or, you=E2=80=99ve made a grammatical error. =
Don=E2=80=99t ask why. Just do it.
Meanwhile, the original purpose of {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} as a topic =
marker is the most controversial. The archives have the arguments to =
prove it.
My limited understanding of it is basically that you put it on a noun in =
the beginning of the sentence where other Type 5 suffixed nouns tend to =
go in order to mark a noun as, =E2=80=9CHey, listener! This is a really =
important noun that has something to do with the sentence that follows, =
but there=E2=80=99s no actual grammatical link between this noun and the =
structure of the sentence =E2=80=94 like we know it=E2=80=99s not the =
subject or the object or any normal indirect object, or the location of =
anything, or any kind of time stamp for the sentence, but hey, don=E2=80=99=
t forget this noun because it=E2=80=99s really important.=E2=80=9D Then =
you have a sentence.
So, if you have something like:
HoDpu'=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99 nIv Qanqor.
It basically means, =E2=80=9CKrankor is superior (while you think about =
captains).=E2=80=9D So, you might translate that is =E2=80=9CKrankor is =
superior among captains.=E2=80=9D Okrand explains this as a =
=E2=80=9Ctopicalizer=E2=80=9D, suggesting that you are presenting the =
topic of the sentence, but given some of the canon examples, there are =
those here who strongly believe that he picked the wrong word, even =
though he apparently picked the RIGHT word when he picked =
=E2=80=9Cperfective=E2=80=9D for {-pu=E2=80=99}, even as his description =
of {-pu=E2=80=99} didn=E2=80=99t really convey what perfective =
apparently means.
It=E2=80=99s a messy world we live in. Inconsistent at times=E2=80=A6
I=E2=80=99m pretty sure I=E2=80=99m going to be corrected on this, =
though...
pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
> On Dec 4, 2015, at 1:00 PM, qunnoQ HoD <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>> Does it make more sense now?
>=20
> HIja' ! reH Qatlhqu' {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99}. DaH vIyaj jIQub.
>=20
> chaq jIghItlhnIS :
>=20
> <while you are using tlhIngan Hol,the things your words are concerned
> with are not limited> jIlugh'a' ?
>=20
> {'e'} DanapmoHbej lojmIt tI'wI'nuv. qavan !
>=20
> qun HoD
>=20
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Will Martin =
<lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There=E2=80=99s a fairly advanced grammatical point that you likely =
are not
>> experienced enough to understand here. Allow me to help. It=E2=80=99s =
the last thing
>> in this brief exchange. See my attempt at help below that.
>>=20
>> pItlh
>> lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 11:40 AM, qunnoQ HoD <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> ...
>>=20
>> tlhIngan Hol Dalo'taHvIS, Dochmey'e' bopbogh mu'meylIj vuSbe'lu'.
>>=20
>> <while you are using tlhIngan Hol, someone is not limited,your
>> words,things which are concerned>
>> ...
>>=20
>>=20
>> The sentence you are struggling with has a =E2=80=9Crelative =
clause=E2=80=9D in it. That=E2=80=99s
>> fairly advanced, and that clause has both a subject and an object, =
making it
>> a step more complex, and one of the nouns is marked with {-=E2=80=98e=E2=
=80=99}, which is
>> not explained in TKD because Okrand had not developed that technique =
yet for
>> using {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} for that purpose at that stage of =
history of the language. So,
>> your ignorance is quite forgivable.
>>=20
>> In Klingon, a verb with {-bogh} creates a relative clause. That means =
it=E2=80=99s
>> like a little sentence that tells you something about one of the =
nouns in
>> that little sentence that is also shared with the larger sentence. In
>> English, we use relative pronouns, instead.
>>=20
>> So, when I say, =E2=80=9CThe guard, who is large, hit me,=E2=80=9D =
the relative clause is
>> =E2=80=9Cwho is large=E2=80=9D. The larger sentence is =E2=80=9CThe =
guard hit me.=E2=80=9D In English, the
>> relative pronoun =E2=80=9Cwho=E2=80=9D is standing in for =E2=80=9Cthe =
guard=E2=80=9D, which is part of the
>> larger sentence.
>>=20
>> In Klingon, there are no relative pronouns. Instead, that one noun
>> participates in both the main clause and the relative clause:
>>=20
>> muqIp tInbogh =E2=80=98avwI=E2=80=99.
>>=20
>> So, {=E2=80=98avwI=E2=80=99} is the subject of {tInbogh} and he is =
also the subject of
>> {muqIp}. You could think of it as {muqIp (tInbogh =E2=80=98avwI=E2=80=99=
)}.
>>=20
>> That=E2=80=99s strange enough to require some getting used to, but it =
gets weirder
>> still if we say, =E2=80=9CThe guard, whom the officer had hit, hit =
me.=E2=80=9D
>>=20
>> {muqIp =E2=80=98avwI=E2=80=99 qIppu=E2=80=99bogh yaS}
>>=20
>> For one thing, we can=E2=80=99t really tell if this means =E2=80=9CThe =
guard whom the
>> officer had hit hit me,=E2=80=9D or if it means =E2=80=9CThe officer =
who had hit the guard
>> hit me.=E2=80=9D Either interpretation is grammatically valid.
>>=20
>> So, we mark the noun that participates in both the relative clause =
AND the
>> main clause with {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} because it is, in essence, =
the topic of the relative
>> clause =E2=80=94 it=E2=80=99s the important noun that ties the two =
clauses together.
>>=20
>> {muqIp =E2=80=98avwI=E2=80=99=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99 qIppu=E2=80=99bogh =
yaS}.
>>=20
>> Now, we know the guard hit me, not the officer. Or if it had the =
other
>> meaning, we=E2=80=99d say:
>>=20
>> {muqIp =E2=80=98avwI=E2=80=99 qIppu=E2=80=99bogh yaS=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99=
}.
>>=20
>> So, going back to the example you stumbled over:
>>=20
>> tlhIngan Hol Dalo=E2=80=99taHvIS Dochmey=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99 bopbogh =
mu=E2=80=99meylIj vuSbe=E2=80=99lu=E2=80=99.
>>=20
>> You got a lot of this right, but keep in mind that {Dochmey bopbogh
>> mu=E2=80=99meylIj} is the original relative clause with the confusing =
{-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99}
>> stripped out of it, because for the meaning of that clause alone, you =
don=E2=80=99t
>> need {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99}. The {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} is added so =
you can tell whether it is your words
>> that are not limited or the things which your words are concerned =
about that
>> are not limited.
>>=20
>> Does it make more sense now?
>>=20
>> qun HoD
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
>> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--Apple-Mail=_B495A226-7B4D-4BD2-BFC2-B64C5A926C1E
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" =
class=3D""><div class=3D"">qaQaHlaHmo=E2=80=99 jIbel =E2=80=98ach =
ghaytanHa=E2=80=99 <<-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99>> =
vIQIjta=E2=80=99.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">The noun suffix {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} can be confusing and =
even controversial because it is used several different unrelated ways. =
It=E2=80=99s use in relative clauses to clarify which noun participates =
in both the relative and main clauses is one of the most =
straightforward, easy to understand uses. It=E2=80=99s also the most =
recent usage developed. I think it was invented on this mailing list and =
later approved by Okrand. I don=E2=80=99t think he came up with the =
idea.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">The =
other clear-cut usage is with explicit subject nouns in =E2=80=9Cto =
be=E2=80=9D sentences, like:</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">tlhIngan ghaH =
=E2=80=98avwI=E2=80=99=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">The guard is a Klingon.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">We can guess about the =
reason that {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} is required for nouns in this =
position of this kind of sentence, but it doesn=E2=80=99t really matter. =
It=E2=80=99s just a rule. You have to follow it. Forever. Every time. =
Or, you=E2=80=99ve made a grammatical error. Don=E2=80=99t ask why. Just =
do it.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">Meanwhile, the original purpose of {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} as =
a topic marker is the most controversial. The archives have the =
arguments to prove it.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">My limited understanding of it is basically that you put it =
on a noun in the beginning of the sentence where other Type 5 suffixed =
nouns tend to go in order to mark a noun as, =E2=80=9CHey, listener! =
This is a really important noun that has something to do with the =
sentence that follows, but there=E2=80=99s no actual grammatical link =
between this noun and the structure of the sentence =E2=80=94 like we =
know it=E2=80=99s not the subject or the object or any normal indirect =
object, or the location of anything, or any kind of time stamp for the =
sentence, but hey, don=E2=80=99t forget this noun because it=E2=80=99s =
really important.=E2=80=9D Then you have a sentence.</div><div =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">So, if you have =
something like:</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D"">HoDpu'=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99 nIv Qanqor.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">It basically means, =E2=80=9CKrankor is =
superior (while you think about captains).=E2=80=9D So, you might =
translate that is =E2=80=9CKrankor is superior among captains.=E2=80=9D =
Okrand explains this as a =E2=80=9Ctopicalizer=E2=80=9D, suggesting that =
you are presenting the topic of the sentence, but given some of the =
canon examples, there are those here who strongly believe that he picked =
the wrong word, even though he apparently picked the RIGHT word when he =
picked =E2=80=9Cperfective=E2=80=9D for {-pu=E2=80=99}, even as his =
description of {-pu=E2=80=99} didn=E2=80=99t really convey what =
perfective apparently means.</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">It=E2=80=99s a messy world we live in. =
Inconsistent at times=E2=80=A6</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I=E2=80=99m pretty sure I=E2=80=99m =
going to be corrected on this, though...</div><br class=3D""><div =
class=3D"">
<span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate; =
color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; =
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; =
line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: =
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div class=3D"">pItlh</div><div =
class=3D"">lojmIt tI'wI'nuv</div><div class=3D""><br =
class=3D""></div></span><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br class=3D""><div><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div =
class=3D"">On Dec 4, 2015, at 1:00 PM, qunnoQ HoD <<a =
href=3D"mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com" class=3D"">mihkoun@gmail.com</a>> =
wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div =
class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D"">Does it make more sense =
now?<br class=3D""></blockquote><br class=3D"">HIja' ! reH Qatlhqu' =
{-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99}. DaH vIyaj jIQub.<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">chaq=
jIghItlhnIS :<br class=3D""><br class=3D""><while you are using =
tlhIngan Hol,the things your words are concerned<br class=3D"">with are =
not limited> jIlugh'a' ?<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">{'e'} =
DanapmoHbej lojmIt tI'wI'nuv. qavan !<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">qun =
HoD<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Will =
Martin <<a href=3D"mailto:lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com" =
class=3D"">lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br =
class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D"">There=E2=80=99s a fairly =
advanced grammatical point that you likely are not<br =
class=3D"">experienced enough to understand here. Allow me to help. =
It=E2=80=99s the last thing<br class=3D"">in this brief exchange. See my =
attempt at help below that.<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">pItlh<br =
class=3D"">lojmIt tI'wI'nuv<br class=3D""><br class=3D""><br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">On Dec 4, 2015, at 11:40 AM, qunnoQ HoD <<a =
href=3D"mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com" class=3D"">mihkoun@gmail.com</a>> =
wrote:<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">...<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">tlhIngan Hol Dalo'taHvIS, Dochmey'e' bopbogh mu'meylIj =
vuSbe'lu'.<br class=3D""><br class=3D""><while you are using tlhIngan =
Hol, someone is not limited,your<br class=3D"">words,things which are =
concerned><br class=3D"">...<br class=3D""><br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">The sentence you are struggling with has a =E2=80=9Crelative =
clause=E2=80=9D in it. That=E2=80=99s<br class=3D"">fairly advanced, and =
that clause has both a subject and an object, making it<br class=3D"">a =
step more complex, and one of the nouns is marked with {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99=
}, which is<br class=3D"">not explained in TKD because Okrand had not =
developed that technique yet for<br class=3D"">using {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99=
} for that purpose at that stage of history of the language. So,<br =
class=3D"">your ignorance is quite forgivable.<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">In Klingon, a verb with {-bogh} creates a relative clause. =
That means it=E2=80=99s<br class=3D"">like a little sentence that tells =
you something about one of the nouns in<br class=3D"">that little =
sentence that is also shared with the larger sentence. In<br =
class=3D"">English, we use relative pronouns, instead.<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">So, when I say, =E2=80=9CThe guard, who is large, hit me,=E2=80=
=9D the relative clause is<br class=3D"">=E2=80=9Cwho is large=E2=80=9D. =
The larger sentence is =E2=80=9CThe guard hit me.=E2=80=9D In English, =
the<br class=3D"">relative pronoun =E2=80=9Cwho=E2=80=9D is standing in =
for =E2=80=9Cthe guard=E2=80=9D, which is part of the<br class=3D"">larger=
sentence.<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">In Klingon, there are no =
relative pronouns. Instead, that one noun<br class=3D"">participates in =
both the main clause and the relative clause:<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">muqIp tInbogh =E2=80=98avwI=E2=80=99.<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">So, {=E2=80=98avwI=E2=80=99} is the subject of {tInbogh} and =
he is also the subject of<br class=3D"">{muqIp}. You could think of it =
as {muqIp (tInbogh =E2=80=98avwI=E2=80=99)}.<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">That=E2=80=99s strange enough to require some getting used =
to, but it gets weirder<br class=3D"">still if we say, =E2=80=9CThe =
guard, whom the officer had hit, hit me.=E2=80=9D<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">{muqIp =E2=80=98avwI=E2=80=99 qIppu=E2=80=99bogh yaS}<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">For one thing, we can=E2=80=99t really tell if =
this means =E2=80=9CThe guard whom the<br class=3D"">officer had hit hit =
me,=E2=80=9D or if it means =E2=80=9CThe officer who had hit the =
guard<br class=3D"">hit me.=E2=80=9D Either interpretation is =
grammatically valid.<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">So, we mark the noun =
that participates in both the relative clause AND the<br class=3D"">main =
clause with {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} because it is, in essence, the topic =
of the relative<br class=3D"">clause =E2=80=94 it=E2=80=99s the =
important noun that ties the two clauses together.<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">{muqIp =E2=80=98avwI=E2=80=99=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99 qIppu=E2=80=99=
bogh yaS}.<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">Now, we know the guard hit me, =
not the officer. Or if it had the other<br class=3D"">meaning, we=E2=80=99=
d say:<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">{muqIp =E2=80=98avwI=E2=80=99 =
qIppu=E2=80=99bogh yaS=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99}.<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">So, going back to the example you stumbled over:<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D"">tlhIngan Hol Dalo=E2=80=99taHvIS =
Dochmey=E2=80=99e=E2=80=99 bopbogh mu=E2=80=99meylIj vuSbe=E2=80=99lu=E2=80=
=99.<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">You got a lot of this right, but keep =
in mind that {Dochmey bopbogh<br class=3D"">mu=E2=80=99meylIj} is the =
original relative clause with the confusing {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99}<br =
class=3D"">stripped out of it, because for the meaning of that clause =
alone, you don=E2=80=99t<br class=3D"">need {-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99}. The =
{-=E2=80=98e=E2=80=99} is added so you can tell whether it is your =
words<br class=3D"">that are not limited or the things which your words =
are concerned about that<br class=3D"">are not limited.<br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">Does it make more sense now?<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">qun =
HoD<br class=3D""><br class=3D""><br class=3D""><br =
class=3D"">_______________________________________________<br =
class=3D"">Tlhingan-hol mailing list<br class=3D""><a =
href=3D"mailto:Tlhingan-hol@kli.org" =
class=3D"">Tlhingan-hol@kli.org</a><br =
class=3D"">http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol<br =
class=3D""><br class=3D""></blockquote><br =
class=3D"">_______________________________________________<br =
class=3D"">Tlhingan-hol mailing list<br class=3D""><a =
href=3D"mailto:Tlhingan-hol@kli.org" =
class=3D"">Tlhingan-hol@kli.org</a><br =
class=3D"">http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol<br =
class=3D""></div></blockquote></div><br class=3D""></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_B495A226-7B4D-4BD2-BFC2-B64C5A926C1E--
--===============6075591849952539077==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============6075591849952539077==--
