[Tlhingan-hol] Ha'DIbaH wIchmey

[mayql qunenoS]

qavan SuStel,

as always, you teach me many things, and for that I'm grateful.
Specific comments and questions follow :

jIH : Ha'DIbaHmey SaHbogh wIchmey law' tu'lu'pu' 'e' vItlhoj.
SoH : you can't put a type 7 suffix on the second verb of a sentence-as-object.

this confuses me ; in the above sentence we have three verbs : {SaH}
{tu'lu'} and {tlhoj}. How does their numbering take place ? I thought
that we begin from the end (the right) and we proceed to the beginning
(the left). So here we would have :

{thloj} = 1
{tu'lu'} = 2
{SaH} = 3

So, my first question is "is this numbering correct" ?

Moving on, I thought (and apparently I was mistaken) that only the
first verb in a SAO, can't have a suffix. In this case the verb
{tlhoj}. I believed that on the verbs that were to preceed {'e'}
someone can put any suffix he wants.

So, my second question is "on which verbs that precede {'e'} in a SAO,
can someone attach suffixes" ?

And then comes another question..

I noticed, you wrote : "you can't put a type 7 suffix on the second
verb of a sentence-as-object."

So, comes the third question "on the second verb of a SAO, the only
suffixes that are prohibited, are type 7, or any other kind of
suffixes too" ?

jIH : 'elaDya'ngan 'avwI' Ha'DIbaH vIghaj,HomDu' parbogh Ha'DIbaH.
SoH : When referring to something by its country of origin, don't
include the {ngan} "inhabitant" element. {'elaDya' 'avwI' Ha'DIbaH}
"Greece guard animal."

I'm very happy to be reading this, because it dissolves a
misunderstanding I had fot quite some time ; I thought that the
{-ngan} was required not only to express the "inhabitant" element, but
also to express that something is "of a place". Luckily I understand
now.

So, I guess if I want to say "german car", I must say {DoyIchlan puH
Duj} and not {DoyIchlangan puH Duj}. However this just hit me :
Doesn't a dog inhabit a place, in our case a country ? But I guess, I
was wrong, not because the dog doesn't inhabit greece, but because it
is a greek dog. If it went abroad, it would still be a greek shepherd
dog.

On the other hand, if we push this to the limit, can't a german man
inhabit greece permanently ? If {-ngan} means inhabitant, then why
shouldn't I call him {'elaDya'ngan} too ?

jIH : *pasta* 'oHbej Soj qaq'Daj'e'.
SoH : Don't forget that only type 5 noun suffixes migrate to the end
of an adjectival verb. What you've said here means "pasta is its
preferable food." I'm not sure what that means. Try rewording this
using {maS} "prefer" instead.

I'm happy to learn (finally) which suffixes migrate to the end of an
adjectival verb. Some time ago, I thought of asking in KLBC, however
something else drew my attention and I forgot.
maybe I should say : {*pasta* maSbej} <it undoubtebly prefered pasta>

jIH : buqvo' Sojmey Sar vIlelchugh, *pasta*vaD Sam 'ej wa'DIch Sop.
SoH : It doesn't search "for the benefit of pasta," so {-vaD} is the
wrong way to say this. Just drop the {-vaD} and it'll still work.

this is good to know too.

jIH : ghIq tawvo' wItlhappu'bogh Ha'DIbaH wIghaj.
       then we had a dog which we took from the street.
SoH : Your word order inside the relative clause is incorrect. What
are the subject and object of the relative verb?

careless me.. I should say (I think) : ghIq tawvo' Ha'DIbaH
wItlhappu'bogh wIghaj

jIH : tIr ngogh parHa' law' Hoch Soj parHa' puS..
       it liked bread most than any other food.
SoH : A comparative sentence requires a verb expressing a quality, but
{parHa'} "like" isn't a quality. Try recasting.

Again, good to know that a quality is required for ... X law' ... X
puS construction. I thought that I could place any verb, ..and problem
solved ! However, I can't find a way to properly express my intended
meaning. maybe :

tIr ngogh parHa'qu'bej. SojDaj QaQqu' 'oH tIr ngogh'e'.
it certainly liked bread. bread was its best food.

jIH : vIje'DI', jIHvaD mubej, 'ej vIleghbe'chugh mol. (tIr ngogh)
       whenever I fed it, it would watch for me, and if I didn't see it, it
       would bury it. (the bread)
SoH : Remember that {-vaD} "beneficiary" doesn't necessarily work for
every English sentence that uses "for."

this is another thing I'm happy to learn ; so far the klingon concept
of {-vaD} eluded me.

jIH : tIqDajDaq HurghtaHghach vIDellaHbe'.
      I'm not able to describe the darkness at its heart.
SoH : You can't combine nouns in a noun-noun construction if the first
noun has a type 5 noun suffix. This is one of those apparently
arbitrary rules in TKD.

thank you for reminding this to me.

jIH : tIqDajDaq HurghtaHghach vIDellaHbe'.
SoH : Using {-taH} just to fill out a {-ghach} is a common, but
cheating, tactic. Unless you actually mean "continuing darkness," what
other suffixes might be better?

actually, I really meant "state of continuing darkness". However to
confess my sin, when I first learned on how to use {-ghach} to form
nouns, the following expression 'arHa' had used some time ago, came to
mind : "let the ghach-ing begin" ! but then, I remembered something
someone here had told me :

"move away from the noun-centric english, towards the verb-centric klingon"

and then I decided to refrain from overusing {-ghach}, because after
all I'm trying to learn proper klingon, and not my personal version of
it. But I believe, that in this sentence it was called for. I wanted
to express the "state of continuing darkness" that reigned in the
heart of that dog. trust me it was scary !

thank you very much Sustel for everything you taught me ! qavan !

rIn

qunnoq

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 5:37 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 1/3/2016 9:48 AM, mayql qunenoS wrote:
>>
>> 'op ben Ha'DIbaH law' vIghaj 'ej Ha'DIbaHmey SaHbogh wIchmey law'
>> tu'lu'pu' 'e' vItlhoj.
>> some years ago, I had many dogs, and I realized that there were many
>> myths which concern dogs.
>
>
> The {-pu'} on {tu'lu'} implies that the "there are" of animal myths is
> complete. That's not the case, so drop the {-pu'}.
>
> The realizing might have been a completed action, but you can't put a type 7
> suffix on the second verb of a sentence-as-object, so you can't express
> that.
>
> {Ha'DIbaH} is, of course, not equal to "dog." Just say "dog."
>
> {SaH} "care about" is all right for this sentence, but a better verb is
> {bop} "be all about."
>
>> wa'DIch, HomDu' parHa'be' Hoch Ha'DIbaHmey.
>> first, all dogs don't like bones.
>
>
> By using an explicit plural on {Ha'DIbaH}, you're saying that all dogs,
> taken as a group, don't like bones. What you mean is that every dog, taken
> individually, does not like bones. I'd drop the {-mey}.
>
>> 'elaDya'ngan 'avwI' Ha'DIbaH vIghaj,HomDu' parbogh Ha'DIbaH.
>> I had a greek shepherd dog, a dog which disliked bones.
>
>
> When referring to something by its country of origin, don't include the
> {ngan} "inhabitant" element. {'elaDya' 'avwI' Ha'DIbaH} "Greece guard
> animal."
>
>> *pasta* 'oHbej Soj qaq'Daj'e'.
>> its favourite food was definitely pasta.
>
>
> Don't forget that only type 5 noun suffixes migrate to the end of an
> adjectival verb.
>
> What you've said here means "pasta is its preferable food." I'm not sure
> what that means. Try rewording this using {maS} "prefer" instead.
>
>> buqvo' Sojmey Sar vIlelchugh, *pasta*vaD Sam 'ej wa'DIch Sop.
>> if I took out various foods from a bag, it would search for pasta and
>> eat it first.
>
>
> It doesn't search "for the benefit of pasta," so {-vaD} is the wrong way to
> say this. Just drop the {-vaD} and it'll still work.
>
> I'm not sure that {wa'DIch} can be used adverbially like that. It's usually
> used after a noun to indicate an ordinal, though we've also seen it used at
> the beginning of a sentence to denote the numbering of a list.
>
> To avoid this problem, consider using a phrase like {latlh Soppa'} "before
> it eats another."
>
>> ghIq tawvo' wItlhappu'bogh Ha'DIbaH wIghaj.
>> then we had a dog which we took from the street.
>
>
> Your word order inside the relative clause is incorrect. What are the
> subject and object of the relative verb?
>
>> tIr ngogh parHa' Ha'DIbaHvam.
>> this dog liked bread.
>>
>> tIr ngogh parHa' law' Hoch Soj parHa' puS..
>> it liked bread most than any other food.
>
>
> A comparative sentence requires a verb expressing a quality, but {parHa'}
> "like" isn't a quality. Try recasting.
>
>> vIje'DI', jIHvaD mubej, 'ej vIleghbe'chugh mol. (tIr ngogh)
>> whenever I fed it, it would watch for me, and if I didn't see it, it
>> would bury it. (the bread)
>
>
> Don't be afraid to restate your nouns where clarity is required. Klingon
> tolerates more repetition than English does.
>
> {jIHvaD mubej} means "it watches me for my benefit." This isn't what you
> mean, though I'm not exactly sure what you did mean. Remember that {-vaD}
> "beneficiary" doesn't necessarily work for every English sentence that uses
> "for." Maybe something like {Ha'DIbaH vIlegh 'e' loS Ha'DIbaH} "the animal
> waits for me to see it" would work.
>
>> Ha'DIbaH Dogh..
>> silly dog..
>>
>> wIch cha'DIch : latlh Ha'DIbaHmey 'av 'avwI' Ha'DIbaHmey.
>> second myth : guardian dogs, guard other animals.
>>
>> Hegh''a' 'oHbejbogh,DoyIchlan 'avwI' Ha'DIbaH'e' vIghaj.
>> I had a german shepherd, which was definitely Death.
>
>
> I'd probably use the noun suffix {-na'} "definite," partly because the
> sentence is about a noun, not a verb, and partly because it makes it clear
> that {Hegh} IS a noun and not an interrogative verb.
>
> Hegh'a'na' 'oHbogh DoyIchlan 'avwI' Ha'DIbaH'e' vIghaj
>
>> Ha'DIbaH porgh tuQtaHbogh Hegh'a' 'oH Ha'DIbaH'e'..
>> the dog was Death which was wearing a dog's body..
>>
>> tIqDajDaq HurghtaHghach vIDellaHbe'.
>> I'm not able to describe the darkness at its heart.
>
>
> You can't combine nouns in a noun-noun construction if the first noun has a
> type 5 noun suffix. This is one of those apparently arbitrary rules in TKD.
> It works, though, if you simply drop the locative:
>
> tIqDaj HurghtaHghach vIDellaHbe'
> I am not able to describe the continuing darkness of its heart
>
> Using {-taH} just to fill out a {-ghach} is a common, but cheating, tactic.
> Unless you actually mean "continuing darkness," what other suffixes might be
> better? {Hurghchu'ghach} "complete darkness"? Or perhaps you could just say
>
> tIqDaj 'ay' Hurgh vIDellaHbe'
> I cannot describe the dark section of its heart
>
>> 'uSghebmey rurbogh Ha'DIbaHmey HoH, vighro'mey HoH, latlh Ha'DIbaHmey HIv
>> je.
>> it would kill chickens, it would kill cats, it would attack other animals
>> too.
>>
>> 'ach maHvaD jup 'oH.
>> however with us it was friendly. (for us it was a friend)
>>
>> tagha' *dopperman* tu'lu'. QIpbogh *dopperman*..
>> finally, there was a dopperman. a dopperman which was stupid..
>
>
> jIQuptaHvIS *dog*mey puS vIghajpu' 'ach Seghchaj vIngu'laHbe'. DaH wa'
> vIghro' neH vIghaj.
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://www.trimboli.name/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol