[111660] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] verbs with {-bogh} and numbers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (nIqolay Q)
Fri Oct 20 03:45:47 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cJPz8TDVbttjb2rNDUU9Gx85XE-TLwXA8p9oUKEov7hFg@mail.gmail.com>
From: nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 12:29:33 -0400
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============0097287012563985902==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1143d8268d37c2055be8dc72"
--001a1143d8268d37c2055be8dc72
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:19 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
> De'vID:
> > That's clearly a situation which isn't yet a problem.
>
> This means that the {wej qay'bogh ghu'} is correct/acceptable too ?
De'vID is pointing out that *wej *also is an adverbial meaning "not yet".
Since relative clauses can take adverbials, *wej qay'bogh ghu'* could also
be translated as "a situation which isn't yet a problem". It's more about
the specific number you picked rather than the construction in general.
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:28 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
> I have no problem with this either, and I don't find it jarring. TKD tells
> us that when you construct a relative clause, that clause with its head
> noun is treated as if it were itself just a noun. If *qay'bogh ghu'* is
> *foo,* then *wej foo *is completely legal.
>
> How many *qay'bogh ghu'* do you have? *wej qay'bogh ghu'.*
>
It makes sense grammatically. But as a stylistic thing, it feels to me like
there's more potential for confusion when splitting the words apart like
that. An object of a relative clause could be interpreted as the first N of
a N-N construction, or vice versa, or some other confusing thing. Keeping a
N-N or number-N construction together feels clearer, more orderly, etc. to
me. (Nobody is likely to interpret *qay'bogh wej ghu'* as "a situation
that's not yet a problem".) It's an aesthetic thing -- it's not wrong, per
se, but it's probably not how I would write it, unless I was intentionally
going for a pun or wordplay.
(I wonder, though: would using commas to set off the relative clause make
sense to most Klingonists? If so, how would you use them? E.g., if I had a
sentence which went like *...mu' mu' wej, qay'bogh ghu', mu' mu'...*, would
that be interpreted as what mayqel is going for? The comma between *wej *and
*qay'bogh* is intended to emphasize that *wej* isn't part of the relative
clause, but would it also make it less clear that *wej* and *ghu'* are
forming a N-N construction? Does the comma after *ghu'* make this more or
less clear? I know there's no explicit canon guidance on the proper use of
commas, this is just a style question.)
--001a1143d8268d37c2055be8dc72
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On T=
hu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:19 AM, mayqel qunenoS <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">mihkoun@gmail.com</a>></=
span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0=
px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">De'vI=
D:<br>
<span class=3D"gmail-">> That's clearly a situation which isn't =
yet a problem.<br>
<br>
</span>This means that the {wej qay'bogh ghu'} is correct/acceptabl=
e too ?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>De'vID is pointing out that <b>=
wej </b>also is an adverbial meaning "not yet". Since relative cl=
auses can take adverbials, <b>wej qay'bogh ghu'</b> could also be t=
ranslated as "a situation which isn't yet a problem". It'=
s more about the specific number you picked rather than the construction in=
general.<br></div><div><br></div><div>On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Su=
Stel <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" target=
=3D"_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span> wrote:</div><blockquote cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid =
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><p>I have no problem with this eith=
er, and I don't find it jarring.
TKD tells us that when you construct a relative clause, that
clause with its head noun is treated as if it were itself just a
noun. If <b>qay'bogh ghu'</b> is <i><b>foo,</b></i> then <b>w=
ej
<i>foo</i> </b>is completely legal.</p>
<p>How many <b>qay'bogh ghu'</b> do you have? <b>wej qay'bo=
gh
ghu'.</b></p></div></blockquote><div>It makes sense grammatical=
ly. But as a stylistic thing, it feels to me like there's more potentia=
l for confusion when splitting the words apart like that. An object of a re=
lative clause could be interpreted as the first N of a N-N construction, or=
vice versa, or some other confusing thing. Keeping a N-N or number-N const=
ruction together feels clearer, more orderly, etc. to me. (Nobody is likely=
to interpret <b>qay'bogh wej ghu'</b> as "a situation that=
9;s not yet a problem".) It's an aesthetic thing -- it's not w=
rong, per se, but it's probably not how I would write it, unless I was =
intentionally going for a pun or wordplay.<br></div><div><br></div><div>(I =
wonder, though: would using commas to set off the relative clause make sens=
e to most Klingonists? If so, how would you use them? E.g., if I had a sent=
ence which went like <b>...<i>mu' mu'</i> wej, qay'bogh ghu'=
;, <i>mu' mu'</i>...</b>, would that be interpreted as what mayqel =
is going for? The comma between <b>wej </b>and <b>qay'bogh</b> is inten=
ded to emphasize that <b>wej</b> isn't part of the relative clause, but=
would it also make it less clear that <b>wej</b> and <b>ghu'</b> are f=
orming a N-N construction? Does the comma after <b>ghu'</b> make this m=
ore or less clear? I know there's no explicit canon guidance on the pro=
per use of commas, this is just a style question.)</div><div><br></div></di=
v><br></div></div>
--001a1143d8268d37c2055be8dc72--
--===============0097287012563985902==
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
--===============0097287012563985902==--
