[Tlhingan-hol] Type 5 on first noun

[Brent Kesler]

SuStel, I understand your argument a lot better now.

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:37 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:


> 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.


toH! I think where you're saying "complete idea", I'd say "complete
phrase". You see {qep'a'vo' puvmeH} as a complete phrase more or less
because we could diagram it without having to assume any missing pieces. It
might not be a complete *sentence*, but at least all the pieces we have
converge into a single phrase. In {QamchIyDaq 'uQ'a'} the pieces don't
converge; we need some verb to join them together (either after the pieces
or maybe between them). Without that verb, the phrase is as badly formed as
if we left "in" out of "cat in the hat" (ie, *"cat the hat").



> 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.
>

I was not aware of this back story to paq'batlh; I guess the time has come
for me to finally get a copy. Objection withdrawn.


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


Now that I understand your argument better, I see what you're saying here,
but this strikes me as an odd way to say it. I agree that in {qep'a'vo'
puvmeH [X]}, X refers to the chapter, but it is *unstated*. We figure out
the missing X by context. The way I'm reading your argument, the physical
presence of the chapter is literally a phrase in the sentence, kind of like
Hugh Laurie's name in this comedy sketch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNoS2BU6bbQ

I don't think that's what you're saying; it's just that how I read it even
in the context of this long debate.



> 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.


Maybe I'm about to embarrass myself again due to my lack of paq'batlh, but
this seems a little weak to me. I don't think formal style necessarily
rules out the use of sentence fragments--unless right after MO said
paq'batlh is a back-translation, he also said that formal style explicitly
rules out sentence fragments, just so he could embarrass me twice. I'm
thinking of chapter titles in Victorian literature: "Wherein our Heroes
Make an Important Discovery". While sentence fragments and Clipped Klingon
overlap, I'm don't think they're the same.

This brings me back to a point you made earlier:

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.
>

Now I'm going to make my own weak argument. Victorian novels sometimes had
chapter titles that were strings of unrelated phrases: "A discovery in a
cave; a fight on the beach; an overdue reconciliation". However, that's
really grasping at straws on my part. We might not use much punctuation in
Klingon, but assuming MO left out a semicolon is too cute by half.

Thank you, SuStel. This was a satisfying debate.


bI'reng
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160212/47188300/attachment.html>