[Tlhingan-hol] {-meH}ed nouns

[mayql qunenoS]

Qov :

> lut! lut qon chu'wI'ma'. qep'a'Daq qalupmeH qaquchnISchugh vIruch.

hehehe ! no need to kidnap me though.. I will be happy to come willingly !

Qov :

> Put all the location nouns behind the -Daq.
> 1. You can't have nouns sitting around in front of an OVS unless
> they are
> timestamps or hidden behind a type-5

Thanks, I didn't know that.

Qov :

> It makes it sound like voragh and I jointly operate a group of
> ships, rather than we each pilot our own.

Indeed you're right ! Now that I think of it again, with a clear mind
after a good night's sleep, I realize that this sounds as if you and
voragh jointly command a group of ships.

Qov :

> I know Voragh answered this and you became happy, but imagine that a
> QongmeH Duj were a place where you went with your teddy bear and pillow
> in order to sleep. Why would you feel that it was stretching the meaning?
> Or you were guessing that "sleeper ship" was a metaphor of some sort.

My confusion here came from the fact, that by reading "sleeper ship",
I thought it as
some kind of secret/dormant ship, which would be activated/come into operation
when the need arose. Something like what in the movies is called
"sleeper agent".
Luckily, voragh explained this to me, so off to my pillow and teddy
bear ! hehehe

jIH :

> vIleghDI', jIja'egh *purpose clause* 'oH buvDaj'e'.

SuStel :

> We have canon of the object of {ja'} being either the person
> addressed or the thing told about. I think it's likely that
> the thing told about is the direct object and the person addressed
> is the indirect object, but both are "objects" and can thus be
> plugged into the object position.

So, this means I should write {vIleghDI', *purpose clause* 'oH
buvDaj'e', jIja'egh} ?

jIH :

> De' 'ut mulI'.
> they transmitted me the necessary data.

I'm very happy to hear that the prefix trick here is correct. However
I need to ask..
I placed the {De' 'ut} before the {mulI'} so as to fit it in the
object position. While
I was writing the sentence, I asked myself <what did they transmit me
?>, and since
the answer was <the necessary data>, I placed it before the {mulI'} ;
If I had placed it
after the {mulI'}, would that be wrong ? I just want to make certain.

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv :

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

I definitely didn't know that. thanks

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv :

> 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.

This actually addresses one of the questions I had about using {-meH}ed nouns.
A question though I forgot to ask ; I was wondering.. The use {-meH}ed nouns,
couldn't result in confusion in the sentence ? Couldn't someone be
perplexed trying
to figure out, if it is a {-meH}ed noun or a purpose clause ? Of
course, if the reader
was advanced and experienced, he would be able to figure this out. If
it were though
an average reader ? So, now that you mentioned it and I'm thinking of
this again,
I understand that by adding prefixes to a {-meH}ed noun, confusion
could take place.

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv :

> 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.

..and this is EXACTLY why I wrote the whole <{-meH}ed nouns decloaking in front
of my cube> story ! I felt that an unknown part of grammar, a part of
grammar I could
never have found on my own or suspected its existence, just appeared before me !
On one hand I am happy I learned it, on the other I'm wondering what
else is drifting
in the vastness of Klingon space, cloacked, undetectable to my
sensors.. And the most
ridiculous thing in this situation is I don't know, how to ask about
it ! How do I ask you
to explain to me, something I don't know its there ?

Anyway, thank you all for taking the time to explain all this to me.
So now, I will shout
in my bridge "tractor beam ! now !" -as shinzon shouted when he saw
picard and data
escaping the scimitar-.. I will definitely assimilate the ghe'tor out
of the {-meH}ed nouns..

cpt qunnoQ




On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:52 AM, lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh
<lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol