[Tlhingan-hol] Religious terminology

[qunnoQ HoD]

> Does it make more sense now?

HIja' ! reH Qatlhqu' {-‘e’}. DaH vIyaj jIQub.

chaq jIghItlhnIS :

<while you are using tlhIngan Hol,the things your words are concerned
with are not limited>  jIlugh'a' ?

{'e'} DanapmoHbej lojmIt tI'wI'nuv. qavan !

qun HoD

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Will Martin <lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com> wrote:
> There’s a fairly advanced grammatical point that you likely are not
> experienced enough to understand here. Allow me to help. It’s the last thing
> in this brief exchange. See my attempt at help below that.
>
> pItlh
> lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
>
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2015, at 11:40 AM, qunnoQ HoD <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> tlhIngan Hol Dalo'taHvIS, Dochmey'e' bopbogh mu'meylIj vuSbe'lu'.
>
> <while you are using tlhIngan Hol, someone is not limited,your
> words,things which are concerned>
> ...
>
>
> The sentence you are struggling with has a “relative clause” in it. That’s
> 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 {-‘e’}, which is
> not explained in TKD because Okrand had not developed that technique yet for
> using {-‘e’} for that purpose at that stage of history of the language. So,
> your ignorance is quite forgivable.
>
> In Klingon, a verb with {-bogh} creates a relative clause. That means it’s
> 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.
>
> So, when I say, “The guard, who is large, hit me,” the relative clause is
> “who is large”. The larger sentence is “The guard hit me.” In English, the
> relative pronoun “who” is standing in for “the guard”, which is part of the
> larger sentence.
>
> In Klingon, there are no relative pronouns. Instead, that one noun
> participates in both the main clause and the relative clause:
>
> muqIp tInbogh ‘avwI’.
>
> So, {‘avwI’} is the subject of {tInbogh} and he is also the subject of
> {muqIp}. You could think of it as {muqIp (tInbogh ‘avwI’)}.
>
> That’s strange enough to require some getting used to, but it gets weirder
> still if we say, “The guard, whom the officer had hit, hit me.”
>
> {muqIp ‘avwI’ qIppu’bogh yaS}
>
> For one thing, we can’t really tell if this means “The guard whom the
> officer had hit hit me,” or if it means “The officer who had hit the guard
> hit me.” Either interpretation is grammatically valid.
>
> So, we mark the noun that participates in both the relative clause AND the
> main clause with {-‘e’} because it is, in essence, the topic of the relative
> clause — it’s the important noun that ties the two clauses together.
>
> {muqIp ‘avwI’’e’ qIppu’bogh yaS}.
>
> Now, we know the guard hit me, not the officer. Or if it had the other
> meaning, we’d say:
>
> {muqIp ‘avwI’ qIppu’bogh yaS’e’}.
>
> So, going back to the example you stumbled over:
>
> tlhIngan Hol Dalo’taHvIS Dochmey’e’ bopbogh mu’meylIj vuSbe’lu’.
>
> You got a lot of this right, but keep in mind that {Dochmey bopbogh
> mu’meylIj} is the original relative clause with the confusing {-‘e’}
> stripped out of it, because for the meaning of that clause alone, you don’t
> need {-‘e’}. The {-‘e’} 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.
>
> Does it make more sense now?
>
> qun HoD
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>