[Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: lIng

Tue Feb 2 09:28:19 PST 2016

Qov :

> OVS bop.

I noticed that the OVS was wrong, so I wrote the following corrected
sentence, in response to lojmIt tI'wI' nuv who noticed too, that the
OVS was wrong. So, I wrote the following sentence :

toQDuj chu' lIngmeH, Huch 'Iq luDIlpu' wo' 'a SIbI'Ha' lI'Ha' toQDujvam

Aside the {lu-} on {luDIlpu'}, is there anywhere else a wrong
prefix/suffix ? I can't find anything else to be wrong !

cpt qunnoq

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 7:18 PM, lojmIttI'wI'nuv
<lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com> wrote:
> Good, strong argument, though not exactly “showing what canon evidence we
> have supporting this,” as you suggested earlier.
>
> First of all, just as Okrand never explicitly talked about the difference
> between direct and indirect objects, he never explicitly talked about the
> difference between restrictive and descriptive relative clauses.
>
> Just to put all readers on the same page: In English, a restrictive relative
> clause is one that identifies a noun as unique from others of the same name,
> like “I want a sword that can pass through the torso of a prisoner in one
> swipe.” What is the sword that I want? I exclusively want one that can pass
> through a prisoner in one swipe. The relative clause identifies the noun.
> The set of all swords is restricted to include only those that satisfy the
> description of the clause.
>
> “My chosen sword, which glitters in the candlelight, is a joy to behold.”
> This is a descriptive relative clause. “My chosen sword” was already
> identified. The relative clause merely describes something that does not
> require identification. It is a parenthetical remark about the object.
>
> The grammatical difference is that in proper English, we use “which” and a
> comma for descriptive relative clauses, but we use “that” and no comma to
> indicate a restrictive relative clause… when the noun is an object. When it
> is a person, we use “who” for both restrictive and descriptive relative
> clauses, but we use commas to offset the descriptive relative clause and we
> don’t do this for restrictive relative clauses.
>
> Descriptive: “The tallest prisoner, who lied at the trial, was executed.” We
> executed the tallest prisoner. He lied at his trial.
> Restrictive: “The tallest prisoner who lied at the trial was executed.”
> There were several prisoners who lied at the trial. We executed the tallest
> of these liars. There was a taller prisoner, but he was truthful at the
> trial.
>
> You can see how the difference can be important, especially to the tallest
> prisoner.
>
> Back to TKD: Add Okrand's tendency to avoid punctuation, and his use of both
> “which” (descriptive) and “that” (restrictive) as relative pronouns in
> section 6.2.3 in TKD, suggests that Klingon can have both descriptive and
> restrictive relative clauses.
>
> “The dog which is running” would be descriptive in English (and technically
> should have a comma). “The cat that is sleeping” would be restrictive in
> English. And, of course, he tantalizingly tosses in “the restaurant where we
> ate”, which he never gets around to explaining at all… much to our chagrin…
>
> Sometimes when trying to understand things from TKD I feel like Sigourney
> Weaver dodging the mashers in Galaxy Quest: “This scene was badly written!"
>
> So, your suggestion that all relative clauses are restrictive could be true,
> but there’s no proof of it. But no, I’m not going to be a jerk and pretend
> that this makes any difference whatsoever in terms of the use of {jaj naQ}
> vs. {jaj Hoch}, and I’ve never suggested that {jaj Hoch} wasn’t perfectly
> acceptable. It obviously is acceptable, and might even be preferable.
>
> I’m just not convinced that this is the same thing as saying that {jaj naQ}
> is unacceptable, which is all I’ve ever wondered about here. The strongest
> evidence I see here is that there isn’t any canon showing its use.
> Considering the paucity of canon overall, that is never a very convincing
> argument, though I have many times, myself, wished that it were.
>
> I’ll leave it that {jaj Hoch} is clearly acceptable and the jury is out on
> {jaj naQ}, so until canon appears otherwise, we should prefer {jaj Hoch}.
>
> pItlh
> lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
>
>
>
> On Feb 2, 2016, at 11:03 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
>
> Here's the post that vanished before I could send it. I don't think I'll
> ever find a completely satisfactory mail client. Sigh.
>
> On 2/1/2016 5:15 PM, lojmIttI'wI'nuv wrote:
>
> I’m just curious if this is a consensus or something that has any canon
> behind it. I would have thought that {jaj naQ} made sense as “an entire
> day”. {jaj Hoch} makes equally good sense, so I’m not challenging this
> as a perfectly fine option.
>
> I would have thought that “a day, which is whole”  would be more like
> {naQbogh jaj}.
>
>
> I see no difference between {Xbogh Y} and {Y X}. Klingon relative clauses
> are restrictive. {naQbogh jaj} means "a day which is whole (and not one that
> is partial)." It is not merely describing the day; it is limiting it to the
> class of days that are whole... which is all of them.
>
> Klingon adjectival verbs are also restrictive. {tlhIngan Quch vIlegh} means
> "I see the happy Klingon (not any other kind of Klingon)." It does not mean
> "I see the Klingon (who happens to be happy)." Likewise, {jaj naQ} means
> "day which is whole (not any other kind of day)," not "day (which happens to
> be whole)." All days are whole, unless the planet explodes beneath your feet
> during one.
>
> We do have evidence, however, that using {HochHom} after a noun means "most
> of <noun>." {tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH wej HochHom} "most of the 23rd
> century" (S15). We have evidence that using {bID} after a noun means "half
> of <noun>." {yopwaH bID} "shorts" (i.e., half of pants); {paH bID} "skirt"
> (i.e., half of gown) (TalkNow!). We have {Hoch} only in {targhlIj yab tIn
> law' no'lI' Hoch yabDu' tIn puS} "your targ has a bigger brain than all your
> ancestors put together," though this could be either {[no'lI' Hoch] yabDu'}
> "the brains of [all your ancestors]" or {no'lI' [Hoch yabDu']} "[all the
> brains] of your ancestors," so it's not clear. In general, I believe that
> nouns expressing an abstract quantity of something (including {'op}, which
> has never come after a noun) can be modified by nouns genitively to mean
> "<quantity> of <noun>."
>
> Meanwhile, the only use of {naQ} as a verb that we have is {cha' choQmey
> naQ} "two full decks" (meaning they're not half-decks) (BoP). It does not
> mean "all of two decks." {naQ} has never been used to mean "all of <noun>."
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>