[Tlhingan-hol] vulqa'nganpu'

[mayql qunenoS]

ghItlhpu' QeS :

> nungbogh QInDaq ghItlhpu' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv, jatlh
> vIjangpu' jIH, jIjatlh
> mujang lojmIt tI'wI' nuv, jatlh

QeS, mu'tlheghmeyvam vIparHa'qu' 'ej vIparHa'qu'mo', qubtaHghachwIjvaD
HolQeD qubtaHghachlIj vItlhap.
QeS, I really like these sentences, and because I like them a lot, I
will take your linguistics rarity (distinctiveness) for mine.

I always wanted to adapt this borg expression to klingon..

qunnoq

On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh at hotmail.com> wrote:
> ghItlhpu' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv, jatlh:
>> I respect that you are being as honest with your beliefs about
>> how the language works as I am.
>
> I appreciate your saying so, and as I've said before, I do have immense
> respect for your skills and experience in the language.
>
> taH:
>> 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.
>
> It seems not. But at the same time, there's no reason this couldn't just be
> a source of ambiguity in the language, just as a lack of {-'e'} in a
> relative clause makes the interpretation of the head noun superficially
> ambiguous. Both of us may well be right. I'm not trying to tell you that
> your natural reading is wrong. All I'm trying to say is that I believe the
> way I interpret the sentence also makes sense. Your initial statement was
> not of the nature of "this is the way I read that sentence". It was "there
> is no other way to read that sentence".
>
> nungbogh QInDaq 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.
>
> vIjangpu' jIH, jIjatlh:
>> 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).
> (poD vay')
>> 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.
>
> mujang lojmIt tI'wI' nuv, jatlh:
>> 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.
>
> Oh, absolutely. I suppose for me it seemed unusual that this statement would
> be placed here specifically as opposed to in the more general section 6.2,
> or in an earlier subsection. So I read into it that although it's a generic
> truth about Klingon, it's also a more specific truth about this kind of
> construction.
>
> taH:
>> 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.
>
> A single sentence composed of two sentences. A thing can be one and be
> another at the same time.
>
> taH:
>> There is no other purpose for a conjunction.
>
> A conjunction's purpose is not merely to connect. That's a function it has,
> but not its sole purpose. Its purpose is to demonstrate the nature of the
> relationship between one sentence and the next: whether it's information
> that shows a contrast ({'ach}), an addition ({'ej}), an option ({qoj}), or
> an alternative ({pagh}). Otherwise there would only be one conjunction in
> the language.
>
> taH:
>> SuStel pointed out that {‘e’} doesn’t refer to a part of a sentence. It
>> refers to a whole sentence.
>
> Yes, it does. Happy to concur on that point.
>
> taH:
>> A conjunction redefines the boundaries of a whole sentence.
>
> And that's where I disagree. A conjunction establishes new boundaries around
> a new whole sentence. But the two sentences that it joins are no less whole
> sentences for being smaller parts of a larger whole sentence, and their
> being sentences is unaffected by the fact that they also act as a subunit of
> a larger sentence. A sentence is not something that starts with the start of
> speech and ends at a period. A sentence is essentially a linguistic unit
> that can stand on its own as a complete utterance.
>
> jIH:
>> 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."
>
> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
>> 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}.
>
> While this is theoretically true, the Klingon in the paq'batlh is also not
> only intended to be a fairly contemporary or popular rendition of a story
> normally told in no' Hol (see paq'batlh xxxi-xxxii), but also is simply the
> longest connected piece of Klingon text of any genre that we have.
>
> taH:
>> Second, this actually makes more sense to me if it DOES refer
>> back to the previous stanza.
>
> Fair enough - I cited it mainly for the sake of completeness, and your
> analysis does make sense too. I just don't want to be hiding any
> information, is all, and I could see already that {'e'} could have been
> reaching back further into the narrative.
>
> (poD vay')
>
> jIH:
>> 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.”
>
>
> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
>> 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.
>
> To be fair, this is typical of the punctuation throughout the paq'batlh; the
> English is owed not to Marc, but to Floris Schönfeld and Kees Ligtelijn, I
> believe. Periods almost invariably appear only at the end of the third line
> of each three-line stanza: another example is "See the spy creeping, / He
> will feed on the weak-hearted, / See the targ, an easy prey." A full stop
> really should come at the end of both the first and second lines in the
> English rendition.
>
> taH:
>> 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."
>
> Again, the English is, I believe, not Marc's. The Klingon rendition is
> functionally a translation of the English (not dissimilarly to what happened
> with the Skybox cards), not the other way around.
>
> taH:
>> 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.
>
> Which is possible, but a very long bow to draw.
>
> taH:
>> 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.
>
> I guess for me it's the path of least resistance. {vay' qalay'ta' 'e' vIpab}
> I can make work without the conjunction, as "I will obey [the fact] that I
> have promised you something". However, even without the conjunction I can't
> make {mInDu'wIj tIbuS 'e' vIpab} work in any kind of grammatical way for me.
> Not only is the grammar screwed for me by making {'e'} refer back to the
> imperative - trying to work out the semantics of having an imperative
> sentence in the role of object of the following sentence, which regardless
> of syntax is still a form of semantic subordination, is sending me up the
> wall - but "I will obey that you look me in the eyes" implies a submission
> of Kahless to Molor that's entirely inappropriate in this context (the canto
> is entitled {qaD} "The Challenge").
>
> taH:
>> 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?
>
> (poD vay')
>
>> 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?
>
> None that I know of. The typical stanza of the paq'batlh is three unequal
> lines (which I think, to be honest, was a simple way to allow what is
> essentially patterned as prose to be cast into a "poetic" form).
>
> taH:
>> Was there time pressure, and this is a long piece and he had
>> to end this somehow?
>
> I doubt that too. It certainly was a long piece; but Marc had a good couple
> of years working on the entire paq'batlh.
>
> taH:
>> Whatever it is, it’s not pretty.
>
> With that, I'm tapping out on this topic at the end of this email. I'm happy
> to be proven wrong in an objective debate about what is or isn't grammatical
> based on canon, but with all respect, appealing to emotion is a fallacy of
> relevance and there's no fruitful discussion to be had once the discussion
> shifts into subjective opinions about what we do or don't find "pretty". It
> doesn't help us work out what is grammatical or ungrammatical Klingon.
>
> taH:
>> 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.
>
> It's a perfect example if what someone wants to know is whether or not this
> specific construction is possible in the language. In fact, qunnoQ asked me
> explicitly the other day about an example of this very construction that I
> had used without conscious thought in a response I'd written to one of his
> emails. I wasn't even aware of this canon example when I first answered him,
> and I wish I had been.
>
> QeS 'utlh
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>