[108494] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] paq'batlh mu'tlhegh
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIE3DvGxsZXI=?=)
Mon Dec 19 09:22:35 2016
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cLa3SwLtqFgnADhXnSo_7FZ4zJ_e2UU-qvD_A3Cow4Y6Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIE3DvGxsZXI=?= <esperantist@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 15:22:31 +0100
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============1163991797302090444==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11431c6876f73c054403a60c
--001a11431c6876f73c054403a60c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Let me try to understand this... perhaps I am repeating what others already
said...
We all agree that {naDev jIHtaH} means 'I am here' and that {-bogh} turns
it into a relative clause. So with {meq} afterwards and no {-'e'}
specifying the head of the relative clause, the sentence is syntactically
ambiguous between:
a) 'I will tell you the reasoning of the here that I am at.'
b) 'I will tell you the here which me, the reason, is being (at).'
Neither of these makes immediate sense if we assume that {-bogh} works
really strictly as a relativizer in the classical sense of the word. We
know, in Klingon the head of the relativizer can bear other syntactic
markers like {-Daq}, {-'e'}, {-vo'} and so on. But it can only relativize
things that act as subject or object inside this relative clause. That is,
{puq leghbogh yaSvaD ...} means 'for the officer who sees the child'.
Outside the construction, the head is something like a dative or
benefactive argument, marked with {-vaD}, it could also be marked as a
locative or ablative, or simple with a topicalizer. Inside the construction
(analyzable as {puq legh yaS}, the head {yaS} can really only be a subject,
and {puq} can only be an object. It is not possible to relativize over
oblique arguments and say something like 'I see the officer to whom I gave
the book'. So they're quite restricted.
But apparently relativization can metaphorically connect with nouns
denoting facts or reasons or mental/factual things like that, like in
English "The reason that I am here". It's essentially the same
construction, and is not simply the same as a normal relative clause. This
also works in German ("Der Grund, dass ich hier bin.") and Chinese
("=E6=88=91=E6=9D=A5=E8=BF=99=E9=87=8C=E7=9A=84=E6=84=BF=E6=84=8F=E3=80=82"=
) and Thai and many other unrelated natural languages.
In other words: The head of the relative clause might not actually be an
argument of the relativized clause itself. Another example in English is
"The day that I met your mother.", where 'day' is the head, but neither
subject nor object inside the relative clause. This is called an external
relative clause or an externally headed relative clause.
From this example we can assume that it also works in Klingon at least with
{meq}, and perhaps there are restrictions, e.g. that the subject (and with
it the verb) inside the relative clause then must be pronominal. It might
be possible to say {qay'moH tlhIngan SoHbogh ngoD} for 'The fact that you
are a Klingon causes problems.' - it is essentially the same construction,
but it's not certain if {ngoD} 'fact' works the same as {meq} 'reason'.
Now either Marc might have simply translated the sentence a bit literal
from English, and didn't notice that it is in fact a rather peculiar
construction, or he did it intentionally, given the fact that many natural
languages work the same way. In that way, I agree that this is a piece of
new grammar, or a small addition to an existing piece of the known grammar.
I'm not sure it's possible to have two full noun phrases inside the
relative clause, and head it with a noun like 'fact' or 'reason'. So is
?{qay'moH tlhIngan ghaHbogh juplI' ngoD} (int.: 'The fact that your friend
is a Klingon causes problems') proper Klingon? We don't know, and I have my
doubts. It's at least unsafe to produce this sentence.
Long story short: The sentence in question is likely an externally headed
relative clause and thus a literal translation of English "the reason that
I am here". This is not uncommon in natural languages, so it should not be
all too surprising to find this in Klingon (though, actually I *am*
surprised; I wouldn't have assumed such a construction).
2016-12-19 13:59 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
> De'vID:
> > {naDev ghaHtaHbogh} "here where he is"
>
> I didn't know that the {-bogh} can express "where". if that is the case,
> then I can understand the sentence from paq'batlh.
>
> however I am curious..
>
> in light of the {-bogh} being able to express the meaning of "where", how
> would you explain the tkd p.172 sentence: {jIHtaHbogh naDev vISovbe'} ?
>
> "here where I am being" ? but in the {naDev ghaHtaHbogh} "here where he
> is" example that you wrote, the {naDev} precedes the {-bogh}..
>
> qunnoH jan puqloD
> ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
>
> On 19 Dec 2016 2:30 pm, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 19, 2016 10:36, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> De'vID:
>> > {naDev ghaHtaH} means "he/she is here".
>>
>> Yes, I can understand this; but if at the above sentence we had the
>> {-bogh} ({naDev ghaHtaHbogh}), then what would that mean ?
>>
>>
>> "here where he/she is"
>>
>> What's difficult about this? {-bogh} turns a sentence into a relative
>> clause.
>>
>> {SuvwI' HoHpu'} "he killed the warrior"
>> {SuvwI' HoHpu'bogh} "the warrior whom he killed"
>>
>> {naDev ghaHtaH} "he is here"
>> {naDev ghaHtaHbogh} "here where he is"
>>
>> What's the difficulty? Is it that you don't accept that the location is
>> the object of the pronoun/verb?
>>
>> Consider {pa' 'oHtaH vaS'a''e'}. What role does {pa'} play relative to
>> {'oHtaH}?
>>
>>
>> My difficulty in understanding the original paq'batlh sentence,
>> had/has to do with accepting the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} as a noun.
>>
>>
>> {[noun] [verb][suffix]bogh} is a noun. What else could it be? This is
>> just a standard relative clause.
>>
>>
>> If that sentence went: {DaH naDev jIHtaH meq Saja'}, then I could read
>> it as "now, the reason of my being here, I will tell you". But the
>> addition of {-bogh} severely messes me up. It is its presence that I
>> can't explain.
>>
>>
>> What you wrote is ungrammatical as a single sentence. The sentence from
>> the paq'batlh is perfectly formed according to known Klingon grammar and
>> has a clear meaning.
>>
>> --
>> De'vID
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
--001a11431c6876f73c054403a60c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>Let me try to unde=
rstand this... perhaps I am repeating what others already said...<br><br></=
div>We all agree that {naDev jIHtaH} means 'I am here' and that {-b=
ogh} turns it into a relative clause. So with {meq} afterwards and no {-=
9;e'} specifying the head of the relative clause, the sentence is synta=
ctically ambiguous between:<br><br>a) 'I will tell you the reasoning of=
the here that I am at.'<br></div>b) 'I will tell you the here whic=
h me, the reason, is being (at).'<br><br></div>Neither of these makes i=
mmediate sense if we assume that {-bogh} works really strictly as a relativ=
izer in the classical sense of the word. We know, in Klingon the head of th=
e relativizer can bear other syntactic markers like {-Daq}, {-'e'},=
{-vo'} and so on. But it can only relativize things that act as subjec=
t or object inside this relative clause. That is, {puq leghbogh yaSvaD ...}=
means 'for the officer who sees the child'. Outside the constructi=
on, the head is something like a dative or benefactive argument, marked wit=
h {-vaD}, it could also be marked as a locative or ablative, or simple with=
a topicalizer. Inside the construction (analyzable as {puq legh yaS}, the =
head {yaS} can really only be a subject, and {puq} can only be an object. I=
t is not possible to relativize over oblique arguments and say something li=
ke 'I see the officer to whom I gave the book'. So they're quit=
e restricted.<br><br></div>But apparently relativization can metaphorically=
connect with nouns denoting facts or reasons or mental/factual things like=
that, like in English "The reason that I am here". It's esse=
ntially the same construction, and is not simply the same as a normal relat=
ive clause. This also works in German ("Der Grund, dass ich hier bin.&=
quot;) and Chinese ("=E6=88=91=E6=9D=A5=E8=BF=99=E9=87=8C=E7=9A=84=E6=
=84=BF=E6=84=8F=E3=80=82") and Thai and many other unrelated natural l=
anguages.<br></div>In other words: The head of the relative clause might no=
t actually be an argument of the relativized clause itself. Another example=
in English is "The day that I met your mother.", where 'day&=
#39; is the head, but neither subject nor object inside the relative clause=
. This is called an external relative clause or an externally headed relati=
ve clause.<br><br></div>From this example we can assume that it also works =
in Klingon at least with {meq}, and perhaps there are restrictions, e.g. th=
at the subject (and with it the verb) inside the relative clause then must =
be pronominal. It might be possible to say {qay'moH tlhIngan SoHbogh ng=
oD} for 'The fact that you are a Klingon causes problems.' - it is =
essentially the same construction, but it's not certain if {ngoD} '=
fact' works the same as {meq} 'reason'.<br><br></div>Now either=
Marc might have simply translated the sentence a bit literal from English,=
and didn't notice that it is in fact a rather peculiar construction, o=
r he did it intentionally, given the fact that many natural languages work =
the same way. In that way, I agree that this is a piece of new grammar, or =
a small addition to an existing piece of the known grammar.<br><br></div><d=
iv>I'm not sure it's possible to have two full noun phrases inside =
the relative clause, and head it with a noun like 'fact' or 're=
ason'. So is ?{qay'moH tlhIngan ghaHbogh juplI' ngoD} (int.: &#=
39;The fact that your friend is a Klingon causes problems') proper Klin=
gon? We don't know, and I have my doubts. It's at least unsafe to p=
roduce this sentence.<br><br></div><div>Long story short: The sentence in q=
uestion is likely an externally headed relative clause and thus a literal t=
ranslation of English "the reason that I am here". This is not un=
common in natural languages, so it should not be all too surprising to find=
this in Klingon (though, actually I *am* surprised; I wouldn't have as=
sumed such a construction).<br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><=
div class=3D"gmail_quote">2016-12-19 13:59 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <span d=
ir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">mihko=
un@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"=
margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"lt=
r">De'vID:<span class=3D""><br>
> {naDev ghaHtaHbogh} "here where he is"</span></p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I didn't know that the {-bogh} can express "where&q=
uot;. if that is the case, then I can understand the sentence from paq'=
batlh.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">however I am curious..</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">in light of the {-bogh} being able to express the meaning of=
"where", how would you explain the tkd p.172 sentence: {jIHtaHbo=
gh naDev vISovbe'} ? </p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">"here where I am being" ? but in the {naDev ghaHta=
Hbogh} "here where he is" example that you wrote, the {naDev} pre=
cedes the {-bogh}..</p><span class=3D"">
<p dir=3D"ltr">qunnoH jan puqloD<br>
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'</p>
</span><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><div =
class=3D"h5">On 19 Dec 2016 2:30 pm, "De'vID" <<a href=3D"=
mailto:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com</=
a>> wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"></div></div><blockquote class=3D"gmai=
l_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left=
:1ex"><div><div class=3D"h5"><div dir=3D"auto"><div data-smartmail=3D"gmail=
_signature" dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto">=
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Dec 19, 2016 10:36, "mayqel qunenoS"=
; <<a href=3D"mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">mihkoun@gmail.=
com</a>> wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"m_-70328140=
75985105197m_2297788669761332784quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-le=
ft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">De'vID:<br>
<div class=3D"m_-7032814075985105197m_2297788669761332784quoted-text">> =
{naDev ghaHtaH} means "he/she is here".<br>
<br>
</div>Yes, I can understand this; but if at the above sentence we had the<b=
r>
{-bogh} ({naDev ghaHtaHbogh}), then what would that mean ?<br></blockquote>=
</div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">"here where =
he/she is"</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">What'=
;s difficult about this? {-bogh} turns a sentence into a relative clause.</=
div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">{SuvwI' HoHpu'} &=
quot;he killed the warrior"</div><div dir=3D"auto">{SuvwI' HoHpu&#=
39;bogh} "the warrior whom he killed"</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br>=
</div><div dir=3D"auto">{naDev ghaHtaH} "he is here"</div><div di=
r=3D"auto">{naDev ghaHtaHbogh} "here where he is"</div><div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">What's the difficulty? Is it that=
you don't accept that the location is the object of the pronoun/verb?<=
/div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Consider {pa' 'o=
HtaH vaS'a''e'}. What role does {pa'} play relative to =
{'oHtaH}?</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div>=
<div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockqu=
ote class=3D"m_-7032814075985105197m_2297788669761332784quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">My difficulty i=
n understanding the original paq'batlh sentence,<br>
had/has to do with accepting the {naDev jIHtaHbogh} as a noun.<br></blockqu=
ote></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">{[noun] [verb=
][suffix]bogh} is a noun. What else could it be?=C2=A0<span style=3D"font-f=
amily:sans-serif">This is just a standard relative clause.=C2=A0</span></di=
v><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><div =
class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"m_-7032814075985105197m_22977886=
69761332784quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pad=
ding-left:1ex">
<br>
If that sentence went: {DaH naDev jIHtaH meq Saja'}, then I could read<=
br>
it as "now, the reason of my being here, I will tell you". But th=
e<br>
addition of {-bogh} severely messes me up. It is its presence that I<br>
can't explain.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div>=
<div dir=3D"auto">What you wrote is ungrammatical as a single sentence. The=
sentence from the paq'batlh is perfectly formed according to known Kli=
ngon grammar and has a clear meaning.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div=
dir=3D"auto">--=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto">De'vID</div><div class=3D=
"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"=
m_-7032814075985105197m_2297788669761332784quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8e=
x;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote></div></div></d=
iv>
<br></div></div><span class=3D"">______________________________<wbr>_______=
__________<br>
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org" target=3D"_blank">tlhIngan-Ho=
l@lists.kli.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org" rel=3D"n=
oreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.<wbr>cgi/tlhinga=
n-hol-kli.org</a><br>
<br></span></blockquote></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a=
><br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org" rel=3D"n=
oreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.<wbr>cgi/tlhinga=
n-hol-kli.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a11431c6876f73c054403a60c--
--===============1163991797302090444==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============1163991797302090444==--
