[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

[SuStel]

On 2/11/2016 5:25 PM, Brent Kesler wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:33 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name
> <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>> wrote:
>
>
>     Using phrases that are not complete sentences is fine provided the
>     phrase is a complete idea. I'd have no idea with a title phrase
>     {qep'a'vo' puvmeH} because the idea is complete. The idea is "for
>     the purpose of flying from the conference." You're describing the
>     purpose of the chapter, or whatever it is you're naming.
>
>
> 1. The way I remember it, you need to have a complete sentence to have a
> complete idea.
> 2. To me, neither {qep'a'vo' puvmeH} nor {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'} are
> complete ideas (though I'm okay with both as sentence fragments).
> 3. In fact, both seem equally incomplete to me (if that even makes sense).
>
> Why is it okay to assume that {qep'a'vo' puvmeH} somehow describes the
> chapter, but NOT okay to assume that {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'} somehow
> describes the chapter?

The implication of the arguments being given by others is that 
{QamchIyDaq} and {'uQ'a'} are not grammatically related words. The title 
supposedly contains TWO complete ideas: {QamchIyDaq} "at Qam-chee" and 
{'uQ'a'} "feast." The title, say some, is actually two titles put next 
to each other: "at Qam-chee" and "feast" which, while anecdotally 
correct, is not strictly the same thing as "the feast at Qam-chee." 
(This is clearer with the {telDaq wovmoHwI'mey} example.) Others say the 
title is part of a sentence that has had its verb removed, though no 
explanation as to why this has happened has been give.

{qep'a'vo' puvmeH}, on the other hand, consists of two grammatically 
related words forming a single idea, saying that the chapter describes 
the purpose of flying from the conference. {qep'a'vo'} is the object of 
{puvmeH}. The two words have a describable relationship with each other.

> If you went to the Feast at QamchIy and saw that
> they hung a banner over the entrance that read {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'),
> would you say that banner is incorrect? Because that's kinda what you're
> doing: telling Klingons they made a mistake on their own banner.

Okrand tells us that the paq'batlh is a back-translation into Klingon 
from an English translation; the original has been lost. He also says 
that any errors are his own. I am willing to take him at his word here: 
there could be errors, and Okrand accepts responsibility for them.

If I actually went to the feast at Qam-chee and saw the banner, I 
wouldn't conclude Okrand had made the error, since he hadn't done the 
translating. Since Klingons aren't real, this can never happen, and 
translator error is ALWAYS a possibility.

>     {N1-5 N2 [X]} where X doesn't appear is not a complete idea. You've
>     taken away a vital component of the phrase. {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'
>     SOMETHING}. {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'} isn't describing your chapter if
>     it's about the SOMETHING.
>
>
> Couldn't you say the same thing about {qep'a'vo' puvmeH [X]} where X
> doesn't appear? I don't see why X can be left unstated with {qep'a'vo'
> puvmeH}, but not with {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a' X}.

There is no unstated sentence with {qep'a'vo' puvmeH}. The chapter 
itself is being referenced.

> Is it just because one has a verb and the other doesn't?

No. If the chapter had been entitled {QamchIy 'uQ'a'} I would have 
accepted it without question. The two words would obviously be related 
grammatically, with the first a genitive modifier of the second. I would 
never in a million years have assumed it was two separate ideas, 
unrelated grammatically. The chapter is not about Qam-chee and about a 
feast; it is about a single thing: a feast identified as the one related 
to Qam-chee.

> To me, as long as it ends with a Type 9, the verb doesn't make the
> idea any more complete. "Because it's cold outside" seems just as
> incomplete to me as all these other examples. In each case we can
> tell there's some X missing and that we have to figure it out from
> context.

It is the difference between a random set of unrelated words and a 
formation of grammatically related words. The "missing word" theory 
requires that the existing words not be related grammatically, and are 
therefore not a single conceptual unit.

> And now I'm probably pouring gas on the fire, but why assume that the
> missing X /follows/ {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'}? As long as we're debating
> sentence fragments, why can't the phrase be {QamchIyDaq X 'uQ'a'}?

A good question! Those proposing that there's a missing word should 
answer this.

> Maybe the complete version is {QamchIyDaq qaSpu' 'uQ'a'}. I think
> that would make a good chapter title. We could even do something
> similar with {telDaq wovwI'mey}: {telDaq wov wovwI'mey}. Maybe we can
> remove the verb in both cases because it doesn't really add meaning.
> Of course lights shine, and of course feasts happen. Let's cut those
> verbs for the sake of brevity (a Klingon might say).

Except, once again, Okrand explicitly says that the style of paq'batlh 
is formal. Clipped Klingon is said by TKD to be used when the speaker is 
under duress or excited. Clipped Klingon is not used anywhere in the 
text proper.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name