[Tlhingan-hol] {-meH}ed nouns

Wed Jan 27 14:52:35 PST 2016

Okrand was not very computer savvy when he created the words {lab} and {lI’}. They mean exactly the opposite of what the definition sounds like. I remember confirming this with him, maybe in the interview or maybe at a qep’a’.

I always remember the difference because if I send a football, I “lob” it, and if I send a message, I {lab} it. Yes, the definition says {lab} is “transmit data (from a place)”, but the place he’s talking about is the place from which you are sending the data. So, {lab} is to send or upload data. Similarly, {lI’} means to send data to a place, but again, the place is the place the data is being sent to, so it means to receive, or download data. It’s the most misleading definition in the dictionary, and when I pointed that out to him, he didn’t see how it could be confusing, because it didn’t occur to him that if I’m in one place and I send data to another place, I could consider that to be “transmitting data to a place”.

Just trust me on this one. {lab} is to send or upload. {lI’} is to receive or download.

And no, I’m not mistaken on this. I really did talk to the man and really confirmed what it meant.

So, they sent the data to you, they didn’t receive the data from you, so you wanted {lab}, though you used {lI’}.

A second point: You translated {jIpaSqu'mo' narghpu’ qaSuchmeH ‘eb} as <because I was very late-it escaped-in order I visit YOU-the opportunity>

Think about it. You can always replace the purpose clause with just the noun describes to get the main clause, then add the clause back in to describe the head noun. So, the main clause is {jIpaSqu’mo’ narghpu’ ‘eb}. "Because I was very late the opportunity escaped.” Which opportunity? The in-order-that-I-visit-you opportunity. There’s no reason to introduce the pronoun “it” in your translation. We know what “it” is. It’s the opportunity.

Third point: When you use a {-meH} clause to describe the action of the verb in the main clause, it is common to have a full {-meH} clause, with maybe a subject and an object and any appropriate prefix. The grammar tends to lay out the words so that you can figure out what noun belongs to what verb, most of the time, with occasional ambiguity, but it’s tolerable. A comma or pause in speech can easily disambiguate.

When a {-meH} clause modifies a noun, the {-meH}ed verb USUALLY has no prefix. This is as close to an infinitive as you’ll see in Klingon. It’s not just a null prefix. It really behaves like there is no prefix. A {ghojmeH taj} is still a {ghojmeH taj} even if it’s {ghojmeH tajwIj} or {ghojmeH tajlIj}. It does not become {jIghojmeH tajwIj} or {bIghojmeH tajlIj}. Technically, it COULD, but it doesn't need to and it generally doesn’t. It may, under rare and appropriate conditions, as the examples you’ve shown prove, have some other prefix, but it is pretty much NEVER the case that the verb with {-meH} gets a subject or object.

Think about how confusing it would be if that verb with {-meH} describing a noun had an explicit subject and/or object. You’d have nouns scattered all over the place. It would be a confusing mess. It’s just not done.

It’s not spelled out in TKD because it’s one of those things Okrand didn’t sort out until after publication. He barely describes that a {-meH} clause can describe a noun. He doesn’t go into much detail. This is one of those things that have been discussed among several of us and Okrand at qep’a’ in the early years.

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

> On Jan 27, 2016, at 4:57 AM, mayql qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm not labeling this as KLBC, since this is a continuation of a
> previous mail, in which the subject of {-meH}ed nouns came up.
> 
> So..
> 
> qen, tlhIngan loghDaq buq'IrwIj vIchIjtaHvIS, narghpu' wanI' Huj ;
> recently, while I was navigating my cube through Klingon space, a
> strange phenomenon appeared ;
> 
> tlhopDaq buq'IrwIj 'et, So'Ha'pu' Duj'e' Sovbe'lubogh.
> in front of my cube's bow, an unknown vessel decloacked.
> 
> vIleghDI', jIja'egh *purpose clause* 'oH buvDaj'e'
> as soon as I saw it, I told myself its classification is "purpose clause".
> 
> 'ach Hujqu' nochmeywIj De' 'ej vIlajlaHbe'.
> however my sensors' data were very strange and I wasn't able to accept them.
> 
> Do' So'Ha' Qov voragh je Dujmey 'ej De' 'ut mulI'.
> luckily Qov and voragh ships decloacked and transmitted me the
> necessary data. (is the prefix trick here correct ?)
> 
> Studying voragh's examples, I have to say that I came in a state of
> bliss seeing this alternate use of {-meH}, for the following reason..
> 
> So far, the only ways I knew of combining a noun and a verb were two :
> either noun-be verb, or be verb-noun. However many were the times I
> wanted to combine a noun and a non-be verb, without of course knowing
> what to do. To confess my sin, those times I would just go on and use
> the verb as if it were a be-verb, but I would *feel* that this was
> wrong. And as I have said before, the goal is to learn proper Klingon
> and not my personal version of it..
> 
> So, loving the whole concept of {-meH}ed nouns, and the new found
> freedom they provide, I would be more that happy to shout in my bridge
> "tractor beam ! now !" as shinzon shouted when he saw Picard and Data
> escaping the Scimitar. I would be more than happy to assimilate them,
> however before I do, I have three questions :
> 
> 1. Can I use the {-meH}ed noun construct, as if it were *normal*
> subject/object depending on the occassion ? for instance am I able to
> say {muHIv ngongmeH Duj} <the experimental ship attacks me> and
> {ngongmeH Duj vIHIv} <I attack the experimental ship> ? I believe that
> this would be correct, but I'm asking in order to make certain.
> 
> 2. Studying voragh's examples I noticed that almost always the
> {-meH}ed verb-noun construction is actually (zero prefix){-meH}ed
> verb-noun construction. But then I saw this : {jIpaSqu'mo' narghpu'
> qaSuchmeH 'eb} <I was too late to visit you.>. Processing this in my
> mind, I read it as <because I was very late-it escaped-in order I
> visit YOU-the opportunity>. So, this makes me come to the conclusion,
> that depending on the occasion, I CAN have a verb prefix before the
> {-meH}ed verb (other than the zero one). right ? For instance if I
> wanted to say <weapon in order to kill me> I could write {muHoHmeH
> nuH} right ? I will not ask about verb suffixes on the {-meH}ed verb,
> because I saw the examples {Qapchu'meH 'aqroS chuq} and {chenmoHlu'meH
> Daq}. So, I'm assuming that aside the usual restrictions in regard to
> the placing of suffixes on verbs, there are no new/special
> restrictions, as far as the verb of the {-meH}ed verb-noun
> construction is concerned. Please correct me if this is a wrong
> assumption.
> 
> 3. This is (or may be) a rather controversial point. I have noticed,
> that always we are using the definitions found in tkd, kgt and
> everywhere else in the most "strict" way. For instance we will use the
> {rup} to mean <to fine, tax> and not to mean <to place excessive
> burden in a non-financial context>. We will not use {rup} to say that
> "the high velocity was taxing on the engines". So far, so good. But
> suddenly this comes along :
> 
> QongmeH Duj
> sleeper ship
> 
> So, now I will ask.. Does "sleeper ship" describe a vessel, where I
> will go with my pillow and teddy bear, in order to sleep ? So, why do
> we use the verb {Qong} for this purpose ? The answer will come, that
> it is (I believe) a canon example. So, logic now would dictate, that
> whenever a verb is {-meH}ed, its definition could be expanded beyond
> the *traditional/strict* interpretation we are accustomed to using.
> I'm quite certain that this is not the case, however I think that this
> is an interesting thing to discuss..
> 
> cpt qunnoq
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol