[Tlhingan-hol] A few questions about grammar re: adverbials, noun-like words

[nIqolay qarpatya']

Thanks! I haven't read paq'batlh yet, so I didn't know if my questions
would be answered somewhere in there. I knew about HochHom but I didn't
know if that was considered just Hoch + -Hom, or a more idiomatic word that
couldn't be generalized.

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm at kth.se> wrote:

>  1)  From paq'batlh, paq'raD, Canto 8, Stanza 11:
>
>  jatlh ‘e’ mevDI’ qeylIS, lop
>
> chaq tugh batlh Heghmo’
> ‘ej chaq tugh charghmo’
>
> After Kahless's words, they celebrate,
> For they may soon die with honor!
> For they may soon be victorious!
>
> Another example is from paq'batlh, paq'raD, Canto 17, Stanza 11:
>
> reH batlh SuvtaHjaj chaH
>
> Let endless battle and honor await them!
>
> ...and another, in paq'batlh, paq'raD, Canto 23, Stanza 3:
>
>  Hay’chu’ luneHqu’
>
> vaj pe’vIl joqqu’
> cha’ tlhIngan tIqDu’
>
> Both Klingon hearts beat,
> At their strongest,
> In lust for blood.
>
> ...and I believe there are plenty more examples.
>
> 2) Epithets like petaQ appear to function as ordinary nouns. paq'batlh
> contains petaQ'e', petaQ'a', petaQvam and petaQmey.
>
> Names also seem to be able to take at least some noun suffixes. paq'batlh
> gives us qeylIS'e' and qeylISma'.
>
> Hoch and latlh are marked as nouns in TKD.
> HochHom is a standard expression, usually translated as "most" or "greater
> part". paq'batlh also gives us HochvaD and Hoch'e'.
> latlhpu' has also been used in canon.
> http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=1997-06-holqed-06-2.txt&get=source
>
> I have no idea about numbers. TKD tells us
>
> Numbers are used as nouns. As such, they may stand alone
> as subjects or objects or they may modify another noun.
>
> However, this may simply be referring to the fact that they can act as
> stand-alone subjects and objects.
> paq'batlh mentions SaD law' to mean "thousands", which is very "noun:ish"
> of SaD.
> My feeling is it should be fine, but I'm far from certain.
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* nIqolay qarpatya' [niqolay0 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 23, 2013 22:53
> *To:* tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
> *Subject:* [Tlhingan-hol] A few questions about grammar re: adverbials,
> noun-like words
>
>    Hello! I've got a few questions about some minor points of Klingon
> grammar. I've been messing around with Klingon for years, and I try to
> follow the KLI mailing list and the updated lists of new words and canon,
> but there's still some things I have questions about.
>  1) Is there any canon, one way or the other, on the acceptability of
> using multiple adverbials in one sentence? DaH tagha' qayaj! ("Now I
> finally understand you!"), pay' bong Heghpu' ("His death was a sudden
> accident.") It seems like it should be acceptable, or at least
> understandable, but I suppose that could probably be said about a number of
> utterances now known to be non-grammatical.
>
>  2) Likewise, can epithets, number words, and quantity words be suffixed
> like regular nouns? To what extent would sentences like the following be
> permissible:
>  DujwIj tI'Ha' taHqeq'a'pu'vetlh! ("Those colossal jackasses botched the
> repairs on my ship!")
>  pIj Seng cha'vam ("These two are trouble.")
>  "Neo", wa''a' SoH ("Neo, you are the One.")
>  latlhpu' tIvoqQo'. ("Don't trust the others.")
>  Hochqoq nuja'pu' ("He told us 'everything'." i.e. "He claims he told us
> everything but I don't believe him.")
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20130423/56f8e070/attachment-0001.html>