[Tlhingan-hol] KLBC: {-'e'} and {-bogh}

[qov at kli.org]

> > I know it's KLBC, but I'm reading this as you want to see lots of
> > sentences, from all of us right?
> 
> yes, indeed !

maj.

> > lo'laHbe' HIch bachbogh mang'e'.
> 
> I see here the {-'e'} attached to {mang}, so I guess that the head noun
(the
> noun to which everything refers) is {mang}. So the sentence must mean <the
> soldier who fired the gun is useless>. So, here the {-'e'} has the purpose
of
> clarifying that it is the soldier who is useless and not the gun.

bIlugh.

> > lo'laHbe' HIch'e' bachbogh mang.
> 
> contrary to the example above, here, it is the gun which is useless.
> So the translation would be <the gun which the soldier fired is
> useless>

maj.

> > chalDaq Qob nIn Hutlhbogh muD Duj.
> 
> I would translate this as <an airplane which lacks fuel is dangerous at
the sky>
> or maybe <the sky (where there is) an airplane without fuel is dangerous>.
> So, if I understand now the application of {-'e'} correctly, I could place
the {-
> 'e'}, depending on the intented translation, this way :
> 
> an airplane which lacks fuel is dangerous at the sky.
> chalDaq Qob nIn Hutlhbogh muD Duj'e'.
> 
> the sky (where there is) an airplane without fuel is dangerous chalDaq'e'
Qob
> nIn Hutlhbogh muD Duj
> 
> moving on..

Read the comments others have written in response to this.  They cover the
type-5 problem and the second meaning which you missed. Remember that
chalDaq is the setting for th rest of the sentence. Once you understand it,
you can just set it aside and interpret the rest of the sentence without it.

nIn Hutlhbogh muD Duj

Which is dangerous, the fuel that the aircraft lacks, or the aircraft that
lacks fuel?  A common saying from English-speaking pilots is that "the fuel
you didn't take" is dangerous.  You'll notice that lojmIt tI'wI' nuv became
so vehement in his passionate objection to this statement that he forgot to
write in Klingon. 
 
> > DaHjaj vengmajDaq 'oHtaH muD Duj QIHta'bogh SorghwI'.  => -'e'
> > possible, but completely unnecessary.
> 
> I understand this sentence, and the reason why the {-'e} is unnecessary ;
> however shouldn't instead of {'oHtaH} the {ghaHtaH} be used ? It is the
> SorghwI' who is today at our city, and the SorghwI'
> can either be a <he> or a <she>.

It's kind of adorable how you have grabbed the alternate interpretation of
the -bogh clause and then interpreted 'oHtaH as an error instead of a sign
directing you back to the correct path.  As you read the sentence, you first
learn the setting the where the action takes place. It happens DaHjaj, and
it happens vengmajDaq. So what happens today in our city?
The verb is 'oHtaH, which means that some thing, not a language using being,
is there. What is the thing that is there? It's the muD Duj'e' QIHta'bogh
SorghwI'. The aircraft is present, not  (necessarily) the saboteur.  Indeed,
were the saboteur the subject of the sentence, ghaHtaH would be correct. 

> > Duj'e' maSbogh Sa' nejlI' nawlogh.
> 
> this must be <the squadron searches for the vessel which the general
> prefers>. I believe if we wanted to say <the squadron searches for the
> general who prefers the vessel> the sentence would be {Duj maSbogh Sa''e'
> nejlI' nawlogh}

maj.

> (by now, my mind has been tied to a knot, but I love this !)
> 
> > Duj'e' maSbogh Sa' nejlI' nawlogh'e' ra'bogh Sa'.
> 
> this must be <the squadron which the general commands, searches for the
> vessel which the general prefers>

bIlughqa'.

> > Duj lunejlI' qoq le' luchenmoHbogh wa'maH wa' rewbe'.  => -'e' can be
> > used on only one of rewbe' and qoq. Which?
> 
> I believe the translation must be <eleven citizens who created the
> exceptional robot, search for the ship>, so the {-'e'} (I think) must be
placed
> on {rewbe'}. It is the citizens who are able to create the robot. The
robot
> can't create living citizens. After all we have the verb prefix {lu-} on
the {nej}.

The OVS structure of the clause demands that it be the citizens who
construct the robot, and yes, the lu- on nej indicates a plural subject, so
the wa'maH wa' rewbe' must be the subject.

> > Duj nejlI' qoq le' luchenmoHbogh wa'maH wa' rewbe'. => -'e' can be
> > used on only one of rewbe' and qoq. Which?
> 
> the {nej} has the zero prefix, so this must translate as <the exceptional
robot
> which was created by eleven citizens searches for the ship>. I would say
that
> the {-'e'} should go on the {qoq}.. but since the {qoq} is followed by a
verb,
> and the {-'e'} is a type 5 noun suffix, I think that it should go on the
{le'}.

majQa'!  It wasn't intended as a trick question, but you are quite right, it
goes on the le'.

> >Duj nejlI' qoq le' chenmoHbogh wa'maH wa' rewbe'. => -'e' can be used
> >on  either rewbe' or qoq, with different meanings.
> 
> ok, I see here zero prefixes on both verbs so if the {-'e'} goes on
{rewbe'} this
> would mean : <the eleven citizens who were created by the robot search for
> the ship>.

You've gone off base here.  The sentence {qoq le' chenmoH wa'maH wa' rewbe'}
can never imply that the robots did the creating. The robots are in the
object position and no amount of -'e'ing can make theme the subject of the
verb chenmoH.  the thing you were meant to notice is that as wa'maH wa'
rewbe' can only be plural, and both verbs have the zero prefix, then qoq and
Duj must also be plural.  I would probably use explicit plurals on qoq and
Duj here if it mattered to me that the reader notice the plurality.

> if the {-'e'} goes on the {qoq} (that is the {le'}) the translation would
be <the
> exceptional robot which created the eleven citizens, searches for the
ship>.

Still, no.   That -bogh clause sits in the subject position of the sentence.
The marker -'e' cannot alter the OVS structure of the sentence nor of the
-bogh clause. All -'e' does is specify which of the nouns in the -bogh
clause does the job of sentence subject. The subject of the -bogh clause is
wa'maH wa' rewbe'. You cannot change that without altering the order f the
words. Write now properly in Klingon how you would translate <the
exceptional robot which created the eleven citizens, searches for the ship>.

> ok, I will stop now (because this reply is getting really long).
> please tell me your comments/observations on my answers so far, and then I
> will move on to the rest of your sentences.

maj. I think you understand it, and just got mixed up on that last one.
You've done very well, especially when I consider that you probably have to
look up most of the words, rather than just reading them and knowing what
they, so the interpretation is quite involved with a lot to hold in your
head.

- Qov

> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 1:14 AM,  <qov at kli.org> wrote:
> > I just like writing sentences. Someone else specify something for me
> > to write sentences about, or I might not stop. Most of these sentences
> > neither use nor need -'e' but as an exercise you could think about
> > where it could go on each.
> >
> > muD Duj QIH SorghwI'.
> > DaHjaj vengmajDaq 'oHtaH muD Duj QIHta'bogh SorghwI'.  => -'e'
> > possible, but completely unnecessary.
> > muD Duj QIHta'bogh SorghwI' muHlu'. => -'e' possible, but completely
> > unnecessary.
> > narghmeH muD Duj QIHta'bogh SorghwI', 'avwI' ngagh. => still
> > unnecessary Duj maSbogh Sa' Sorghta' 'urwI'. => -'e' unnecessary
> > because the verb only matches one of the possible objects Duj maSbogh
> > Sa' quchta' 'urwI'. => -'e' unnecessary because the verb only matches
> > one of the possible objects Duj'e' maSbogh Sa' nejlI' nawlogh.
> > Duj'e' maSbogh Sa' nejlI' nawlogh'e' ra'bogh Sa'.
> > Duj lunejl' wa'maH wa' rewbe'.
> > Duj lunejlI' qoq le' luchenmoHbogh wa'maH wa' rewbe'.  => -'e' can be
> > used on only one of rewbe' and qoq. Which?
> > Duj nejlI' qoq le' luchenmoHbogh wa'maH wa' rewbe'. => -'e' can be
> > used on only one of rewbe' and qoq. Which?
> > Duj nejlI' qoq le' chenmoHbogh wa'maH wa' rewbe'. => -'e' can be used
> > on either rewbe' or qoq, with different meanings.
> > HeghDI' loDnal'e' maSqu'bogh ta', tagh rInbe'bogh noH.  = The endless
> > war began when the emperor's favourite husband died.
> >
> > DIr QIH tIH. = The ray damages skin.
> > tIH bach tal. = The cannon shoots a ray.
> > DIr Qan Sut le'. = Special clothing protects skin.
> > DIr Qanbe' Sut motlh. = Ordinary clothing does not protect skin.
> > DIr'e' Qanbe'bogh Sut le' = skin unprotected by special clothing
> > [sentence fragment] DIr Qanbe'bogh Sut'e' = clothing that does not
> > protect skin [sentence fragment] DIr'e' Qanbe'bogh Sut le' QIH tIH. =
> > The ray damages skin that is unprotected by special clothing.
> > DIr Qanbe'bogh Sut le''e' QIH tIH. = The ray damages special clothing
> > that does not protect skin.
> > qIjchoH DIr Qanbe'bogh Sut le'. = Skin unprotected by special clothing
> > turns black.
> > DIr QIHbogh tIH bach tal lo'bogh jagh.  => two ways to interpret, both
> > are equally useful.
> > DIr QIHbogh tIH nuD Qel Dorbogh chamwI'. = Four possibilities here;
> > the two below are the most likely.
> > DIr'e' QIHbogh tIH nuD Qel'e' Dorbogh chamwI'.
> > DIr QIHbogh tIH'e' nuD Qel Dorbogh chamwI''e'.
> > mang vaQHa'moH DIr QIHbogh tIH.
> > 'up DIr QIHpu'bogh tIH.
> > mang HoH DIr QIHbogh tIH.
> > ra'wI' pon mang Qotlhbogh tIH. = "The soldier-disabling ray convinces
> > the commander." or "The soldier disabled by the ray convinces the
> commander."
> > che'ronDaq jachtaH negh Qotlhpu'bogh tIH.
> > che'ron ghatlh negh Qotlhpu'bogh tIH.
> > che'ronDaq negh Qotlhpu'bogh tIH'e' Qaw' jorwI'. = Explosives destroy
> > the ray that disabled soldiers on the battlefield.
> > che'ronDaq negh'e' Qotlhpu'bogh tIH Qaw' jorwI'. = Explosives destroy
> > the soldiers disabled by the ray on the battlefield.
> > veSvam yapbe'bej ngat ngaSbogh nIch'e'. = Gunpowder-containing
> > ammunition is definitely not sufficient for this warfare.
> > HIvQo' tIH leghpu'bogh QaS'e'. = Troops who have seen the ray refuse
> > to attack.
> > HIvqa'Qo' QaS rIQ leghpu'bogh HoD'e'.  = The captain who has seen the
> > injured troops refuses to resume the attack.
> > HeDlI'bogh QaS qIch ghu' yajbe'bogh totlh. = A commodore who doesn't
> > understand the situation condemns the retreating troops.
> > reH Hegh yoHwI'pu''e'. => Don't forget that this is the same -'e'. It
> > simply calls more attention to one of the nouns.
> > toDSaH ghaH totlhvetlh'e'. = That commodore is a @#$%.  => This is the
> > only type of sentence in which the -'e' is required (for non-Morskans).
> >
> > mu'tlhegh qontaHbogh Qov mevnISmoH vay'. :-)
> >
> >   - Qov 'utlh
> > --
> > Online Klingon Course free to all KLI members:
> > http://www.kli.org/members-only/klcp-prep/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: qov at kli.org [mailto:qov at kli.org]
> >> Sent: January 17, 2016 13:33
> >> To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list
> >> Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] KLBC: {-'e'} and {-bogh}
> >>
> >> So I do have something else to do, but I'm sad that there are no more
> >> example sentences, so I'm going to write some more.
> >>
> >> HIch bach mang. = The soldier shoots the pistol. (Yeah, the official
> >> gloss
> > is
> >> "handgun" but I looked up both handgun and pistol in the Canadian
> >> Oxford and the definitions are too close to identical to whine about).
> >> Duy' HIch bachbogh mang. = The pistol the soldier shoots is
> >> defective. It could be interpreted that it was the soldier who was
> >> defective, but unless
> > it's
> >> a robosoldier, 'defective' isn't a word that would normally be used
> >> for a soldier. After reading the word Duy', I'm primed to look for a
> >> physical
> > object
> >> to be the subject of the sentence, so I latch onto HIch and read it
> > correctly
> >> without the help of -'e'.
> >> tlhIv HIch bachbogh mang. = The soldier who shoots the pistol is
> >> insubordinate. Again, unless we're dealing with advanced AI, there's
> >> only one side of the -bogh clause that can be the subject of the
> >> verb, so
> > reading it
> >> I disregard HIch as a possible subject and keep reading to mang.
> >> lo'laHbe' HIch bachbogh mang'e'. => No translation given here or
> >> below, so you have a chance to read such sentences for yourself and
> >> decide what they mean. It's not clear from your question whether your
> >> issue is with how to correctly place -'e', how to interpret it, or
> >> why you'd want the darn
> > thing in
> >> the first place.
> >> lo'laHbe' HIch'e' bachbogh mang.  => Either a soldier or a handgun
> >> can be useless, so the -'e' is useful here to indicate which is the
> >> useless item
> > in each
> >> sentence. It's still not required.  qunnoq HoD could watch a soldier
> >> fire
> > a
> >> handgun and proclaim "lo'laHbe'!" without telling his audience
> >> whether it was the personnel or equipment of which he disapproved.
> >>
> >> And here's a bonus sixth sentence to show the power of not using -'e'.
> >>
> >> chalDaq Qob nIn Hutlhbogh muD Duj.
> >>
> >> It says two things at once, both true. It's also okay if the reader
> >> takes
> > just one
> >> meaning and moves on.
> >>
> >> Personally, I only use -'e' in relative clauses if I think that
> >> without
> > it, an
> >> intelligent reader will take a meaning I didn't intend, or if the
> >> sentence
> > is
> >> sufficiently complex that -'e' will help the reader know when the
> >> relative clause ends.
> >>
> >> - Qov
> >>
> >> > mu'tlhegh qon be'. = The woman wrote a sentence.
> >> > mu'tlhegh qonbogh be' vIlaD. = I read the sentence the woman  wrote.
> >> > (I could use -'e' here, but it's obvious that you don't read a
> >> > woman, so why bother).
> >> > mu'tlhegh qonbogh be' vIparHa'. = I like the sentence the woman
> wrote.
> >> > OR
> >> I
> >> > like the woman who wrote the sentence.
> >> > mu'tlhegh'e' qonbogh be' vIparHa'. = I like the sentence the woman
> > wrote.
> >> > OR It's the sentence the woman wrote that I like.
> >> > mu'tlhegh qonbogh be''e' vIparHa'. = I like the woman who wrote the
> >> > sentence. OR It's the woman who wrote the sentence that I like.
> >> >
> >> > There's my five. I hope your plan works and once you get a good
> >> > collection
> >> of
> >> > examples, it falls into place.
> >> >
> >> > - Qov
> >> >
> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > From: mayql qunenoS [mailto:mihkoun at gmail.com]
> >> > > Sent: January 17, 2016 2:32
> >> > > To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list
> >> > > Subject: [Tlhingan-hol] KLBC: {-'e'} and {-bogh}
> >> > >
> >> > > qavan 'arHa'
> >> > >
> >> > > this may be an unusual request for the KLBC, however I will ask,
> >> > > because I can't seem to understand the use of {-'e'} when the
> >> > > {-bogh} comes into
> >> > play..
> >> > >
> >> > > could you write 5 sentences of your own, where there is {-bogh},
> >> > > and the
> >> > {-
> >> > > 'e'} used to distinguish where the {-bogh} refers ?
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm asking that you write 5 sentences of your own, because I have
> >> > > already studied the TKD sentences and I didn't understand. Also,
> >> > > I'm not trying to write my own sentences, because I have no jay'
> >> > > idea how the ghe'tor I'm supposed to use {-bogh} and {-'e'}
together.
> >> > >
> >> > > thanks
> >> > >
> >> > > cpt qunnoq
> >> > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> >> > > Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> >> > > http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> >> > Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> >> > http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> >> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> >> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> > Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> > http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol