[Tlhingan-hol] vulqa'nganpu'

Fri Jan 1 08:46:35 PST 2016

I respect that you are being as honest with your beliefs about how the language works as I am. I wish that either of us could find something that makes the difference in interpretation resolve somehow, though at this point, it’s not looking hopeful.

More below.

lojmIt tI’wI’ nuv ‘utlh
Door Repair Guy, Retired Honorably

> On Jan 1, 2016, at 1:59 AM, Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ghItlhpu' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv, jatlh:
> > I'm more than a little certain that TKD explains that while we
> > may translate Sentence As Object into one sentence in English,
> > in Klingon, the two sentences are separate. A conjunction
> > makes the two sentences one. They are no longer separate.
> 
> TKD 6.2.5 says nothing about the two sentences of an SAO being "separate". It does say that for this kind of construction, "what is a single sentence in English is often two sentences in Klingon" (TKD p.65). But if it is done with two sentences, why can't those two sentences be conjoined with a grammatical tool that exists for the purpose of chaining sentences together? And the use of the word "often" here is indicative to me that there are times when the result of an SAO may be a single sentence. When two subsentences are linked by a conjunction to form the larger complex sentence would certainly fall into that category.

Interesting.

I had interpreted his choice of the word “often” to allude to there being other situations beyond that of SAO where Klingon would use multiple sentences to express what is one sentence in English. I had this interpretation because it’s obviously true. There are many examples of this in canon.

As for why the “two sentences” can’t be conjoined with a conjunction, very simply, the sole purpose and function of a conjunction is to form a single sentence from what was originally a pair of sentences. The result isn’t a pair of sentences. The result is a single sentence. There is no other purpose for a conjunction. If a conjunction fails to do that one function, then whatever is the purpose of a conjunction? Is it just to give our lips a reason to keep moving? Does it simply replace a period? Is it an optional alternative to punctuation? Is it a codified equivalent of “um”, “er” or “uh”?

Please explain to me what a conjunction does. You seem to think I completely misunderstand it, so please be more specific. You tell me that a conjunction doesn’t do what I think it does. Okay, so explain what it DOES do. Why do we bother having them? One would think that as much as Klingon sheds fluff in verbiage it would have discarded conjunctions long ago if they don’t form a single sentence out of a pair of them.

> taH:
> > You seem to have great confidence in my error.
> 
> No, merely a lack of confidence in the basis for your certainty.
> 
> taH:
> > I’m trying to follow what you are suggesting, but the problem
> > is that a conjunction creates a complex sentence. Once you’ve
> > joined two sentences with a conjunction, you can’t then deal
> > with separate parts as if they weren’t joined.
> 
> As SuStel has noted, a sentence can have another sentence as a subunit.

His is an interesting argument. I’d honestly never considered his approach, but I won’t address that here. I’ll try to find his message and answer it directly.

> (poD vay')
> 
> taH:
> > But you do have to come up with some kind of actual example,
> > rather than an opinion.
> 
> The same goes for you, with all respect, and that was all I was trying to point out in my original email on the topic: it's not so much about what the canon contains, as what it doesn't contain, and what I couldn't see in canon was the basis for your initial, quite categorical statement about what doesn't qualify as a sentence for the purposes of SAO.

SuStel pointed out that {‘e’} doesn’t refer to a part of a sentence. It refers to a whole sentence. A conjunction redefines the boundaries of a whole sentence. No one has explained yet why this is not to be recognized.

> At any rate, after having sifted through the canon, I finally did find two examples in the paq'batlh, though with the conjunction {'ej} rather than {'ach}:
> 
> SoHvaD quvwI' qem Hegh 'e' wIvDI' Hegh
> pop Hevchugh quvwI'
> 'ej 'e' DaqaSmoHchugh jIlaj
> "The honorable will be rewarded
> After death chooses to bring them to you,
> If you make it so, I accept."
> 
> (paq'raD 16.25-27)
> 
> Now, the problem with this one is that {'e'} could also conceivably refer back to {Heghpu'wI'pu' DamIlHa'moH SoH} in the previous stanza, instead of the first of the two conjoined clauses, {pop Hevchugh quvwI’}.

First, if we are dealing with stanzas, we are likely dealing with poetry, and Okrand has made it quite clear that poetry does not always follow the rules of grammar. See {tlhonmey}.

Second, this actually makes more sense to me if it DOES refer back to the previous stanza. In fact, since the English translation doesn’t include the conjunction, my honest guess would be that the conjunction is there specifically to redirect the {‘e’} back farther to the previous complete sentence.

What is the “it” that you might make so? It’s more likely “You cause the ones who have died to be un-formerly-honored,” or “You restore honor to the ones who have died.” If you make THAT so, and if Death will do all the rewarding and carrying stated above, then I accept (something apparently stated somewhere else).

Okay, I’m gaining respect for how complex this passage really is:

"When Death chooses that death carries the honored ones to you, if the honored ones receive rewards and if you cause-to-occur that YOU restore lost honor to those who have died, then I accept."

I really can’t interpret this {‘e’} as referring to anything earlier in the same stanza, since what we have are two dependent clauses joined by {‘ej}. If you make it so and if the honored ones are rewarded. That’s what’s being joined by {‘ej}. {‘e’} is simply part of the second conditional clause. It has to refer to a previous complete sentence, and there isn’t one earlier in that stanza. Look at the verbs: {wIvDI’}, {Hevchugh}, {DaqaSmoHchugh}. {qem} is already referred back to by {‘e’ wIvDI’}. 

Are you arguing that {‘e’ DaqaSmoHchugh} refers back to the same {SoHvaD quvwI’ gem Hegh} that is already referred to by {‘e’ wIvDI’ Hegh}? If so, then this is a VERY complex sentence, where a single sentence is represented in what is basically the time stamp AND the main verb. Let’s try:

“When Death chooses that Death carries the honored ones to you, if the honored ones receive a reward and if you cause-to-occur that Death carries the honored ones to you, then I accept.”

I can sort of see that, but there’s dissonance between you causing Death to carry, and Death choosing to carry. It can’t be that you are causing Death to choose to carry because {wIvDI’} has that inconvenient {-DI’} on it, making it not the clause that {‘e’ DaqaSmoHchugh} points to. It just works out better as a sequence of causation if the event you are causing to occur is the restoration of honor, not the carrying of those who are honored. You cause the formerly-honored to be presently-honored-again, and the rest follows. Death will then bestow the reward and carry those rewarded to you.

> But then there's this example from a little later in the paq'batlh:
> 
> mInDu'wIj tIbuS molor
> vay' qalay'ta'
> 'ej batlh 'e' vIpab
> "Look me in the eye, Molor,
> I gave you my word of honor,
> And I will respect it.”

This is a better example of your point. It is an odd example, since the English puts a comma after “Molor” where a period obviously belongs. It’s also odd that the English translates the literal “and I will honorably follow the rules that I have accomplished promising you something (unspecified),” as what amounts to “I will respect my word of honor, which I have given you."

Clearly, he doesn’t mean “I honorably follow the rules that [imperitive] look me in my eyes.” Unless there’s some cultural reference lost on us that looking me in the eyes implies rules that I have to follow honorably. 

Actually, that doesn’t sound all that impossible. Molor knows that the speaker has made a promise. What set of rules is the speaker honorably saying he will follow? The rules of the promise, or the rules of what one does while one looks into another one’s eyes? One seems about as likely as the other. Either one requires that the audience understand the context of the rules.

But I, as audience, honestly don’t. It could be either one, so far as I can tell. Grammatically, either choice is strange. I’ve never seen an imperative sentence referred to by {‘e’} and I’ve never seen an independent clause conjoined to the sentence containing {‘e’} referred to by {‘e’}. Which do we have occurring here?

It would be nice if Okrand commented on this. If either of these is the case, it would be better if we were told precisely which we have been shown.

So, is this an example of Okrand clearly thinking through the grammar? Was there any poetic requirement of syllable count and emphasis affecting his word choice? Was there time pressure, and this is a long piece and he had to end this somehow?

Whatever it is, it’s not pretty.

It’s the one example in canon that presents itself to use a conjunction joining the sentence referred to by {‘e’} with the sentence containing {‘e’}. And it’s not pretty.

Okay, so write sentences as ugly as you like. I have no authority to stop you. You don’t have to convince me of anything.

But please don’t hold this up as an example to new speakers as to how a good Klingon sentence should be constructed. It’s not that good of an example. I don’t think it deserves the attention it is getting as authoritative canon defining clean grammar.

> (paq'raD 21.1-3)
> 
> On this one there's no alternative reading; there's no preceding stanza in this canto. {'e'} must refer to {vay' qalay'ta’}.

You may be right, though this is no less strange than it being {mInDu’wIj tIbuS molor}, which may, to all our dismay, be the case, instead.

> QeS 'utlh 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org <mailto:Tlhingan-hol at kli.org>
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol <http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160101/7b73834e/attachment-0001.html>