tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 01 09:05:33 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
KLBC
ngabwI', my questions come at the bottom of this post. :)
weQqul
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
weQqul:
> > I think this should have been written:
> > vIparHa'qu'mo' mu'tlheghlIj'e', vIlo' je.
ngabwI':
>This means "Because I like it, I will use *your sentence*." Punctuation
>notwithstanding, it makes perfect sense.
{vIlo' je} "I will use it too, I will also use it"
>You wish to use the other person's sentence (as opposed to your own)
>because you like it. Nothing wrong with it.
weQqul:
> > also i think i remember someone else telling me something very similar to
> > what you did about needing to use the noun on both sides of the sentence,
ngabwI':
>I'm not sure what you're speaking about, but the only thing a Klingon
>sentence *needs* to have is a verb. Period. Everything else is gravy.
This is a question of grammar vs. style. It's perfectly grammatical, but
the style may be a bit awkward. I think weQqul feels that the object noun
needs to be used in both clauses. In the re-punctuated sentence:
vIparHa'qu'mo', mu'tlheghlIj'e' vIlo' je.
{vI-} doesn't actually refer to anything within its own clause, but
anticipates the stated object {mu'tlheghlIj} of the second clause. (Do we
have any examples of the verb prefixes being used in this anticipatory
manner?) And weQqul is right: Some people feel it's better Klingon style
to place subject and object in the first clause of a complex sentence and
not force the listener/reader to wait until the second, or even third,
clause; in the case of the subject, you'd have to wait until the very end
of the sentence. Personally, as long as the sentence is relatively short -
so that the listener won't loose track of the thread and become confused -
I see nothing wrong in using anticipatory pronouns and prefixes in this
manner.
Alternatively, one way to get around this is to repeat the relevant subject
or object noun in both clauses:
mu'tlheghlIj'e' vIparHa'qu'mo', mu'tlheghlIj vIlo' je.
"Because I like *your sentence*, I will use your sentence too."
(IIRC Okrand has done this a few times, but it's early in the day and I
can't think of any at the moment.)
OTOH, based on the punctuation, I think weQqul may have meant to write:
mu'tlheghlIj'e' vIparHa'qu'mo', vIlo' je.
"Because I like *your sentence*, I will use it too."
in which case this is a perfectly normal sentence, with the object prefix
{vI-} referring to the object of the first clause. In fact, if you write
it this way, you don't really need {-'e'}; the sentence is emphatic enough
with {-qu'}. Too much emphasis can be counter-productive.-
qon Voragh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
mu'tlheghlIj'e' vIparHa'qu'mo', vIlo' je.
"Because I like *your sentence*, I will use it too."
qon Voragh
in which case this is a perfectly normal sentence, with the object prefix
{vI-} referring to the object of the first clause. In fact, if you write
it this way, you don't really need {-'e'}; the sentence is emphatic enough
with {-qu'}. Too much emphasis can be counter-productive.-
--------------------------------------------------
Which is exactly how i wrote it in the beginning! look at it here below.
[email protected] writes:
<qar. veqlarghwI' bIH <ten>'e' <tem>'e' je.>
qon ghunchwI'
veqlarghwI' bIH <qatlh>'e' <chay'>'e' je. mu'meylIj rurbe' mu'meywIj 'ach
cha' mu'meyvam vIDuDtaH. mu'tlheghlIj vIparHa'qu'mo', vIlo' je.
vIta'pu'mo',
qayIvbe' 'e' vItul. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
qon Voragh
Alternatively, one way to get around this is to repeat the relevant subject
or object noun in both clauses:
mu'tlheghlIj'e' vIparHa'qu'mo', mu'tlheghlIj vIlo' je.
"Because I like *your sentence*, I will use your sentence too."
---------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
no. i dont know! i was told this by someone on the list a while back on
another subject and again last night by another person. nov wamwI' told me. look
below!
From: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 01:00:25 EST
Subject: Re: ghunchu'wI' QIn vIyajmeH QaH vIpoQbej.
qon weQqul
>veqlarghwI' bIH <qatlh>'e' <chay'>'e' je. mu'meylIj rurbe' mu'meywIj 'ach
>cha' mu'meyvam vIDuDtaH. mu'tlheghlIj vIparHa'qu'mo', vIlo' je.
vIta'pu'mo',
>qayIvbe' 'e' vItul. :)
qon nov wamwI'
<mu'tlheghlIj vIparHa'qu'mo', vIlo' je.>
I think this should have been
written: vIparHa'qu'mo' mu'tlheghlIj'e', vIlo' je. Also, I am not absolutely
sure,
but you may need to use the noun on both sides of this sentence
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
My conclusion:
people have different writing styles.( BTW different styles in speech too. i
know i do!) that doesnt mean they are grammatically incorrect and when someone
responds to a beginners post, they should take this into consideration, if
they want to help rather than confuse the original writer. nov wamwI' made it
perfectly clear to me when he answered my posts that he was unsure of it all. he
further stated that we were both beginners. the problem i have is with people
who do not distinguish the difference between a style of writing and proper
grammar as you pointed out clearly in this post..for which i thank you so very
much! :) and also for this reason i posted this question to the grammarian.
now that i think i remember correctly it was another person who told me in
another post a while back that i needed to use nouns on both sides of a sentence
like this one, but the grammarian either told me that it wasnt necessary or i
didnt receive a response from him. either way, this problem came up again last
night in this thread. hopefully i and other beginners will take notice and not
make the same mistakes over and over.
SO LISTEN UP BEGINNERS:
YOU CAN USE THE NOUN ON BOTH SIDES OF THE SENTENCE, BUT YOU DONT HAVE TO!
also, someone told me i should have used {confuse} in this sentence instead
of {mixe}: mu'meylIj rurbe' mu'meywIj 'ach cha' mu'meyvam vIDuDtaH. Since no
one commented on this i am asking now...i wanted to say that i mix them. yes,
it can be said {i confuse them}, but again are we talking about a style of
writing or of speech or are we talking grammatically correct or not?
my exact meaning for this was intended: my words are not just like yours but
i am constantly mixing the 2 . ( i thought that since i was using a number i
needed to use the noun again, so it would be understood that i was still
talking about the words and not some other 2 somethings.) possibly because of the
whole prior need to use or not need to use noun on both sides posts made days
ago. or weeks ago. i dont remember now and i dont know why i did it. it looks to
me that it would make just a much sense whether i used it on both sides or
not. i think i spend way too much time second guesssing myself due to
misunderstandings i have with other people's responses here. although i appreciate the
imput and most of it is ok and it doesnt confuse me,, for now on i will put
KLBC in my posts if i have any questions concerning grammar in order to get the
correct info from him first before others respond. i can see why now confusing
this can be. beginners are not necessarily familiar with all of the
terminology associated with learning this language and even though I know several
languages, i didnt get into the grammar of them like i have to with this one. i
learned the others through speech mostly and the grammar came kind of natural in
time and with repeated use of the languages..
reH taHjaj tlhIngan Hol!
weQqul
bIjatlhnISchugh, tlhIngan Hol yIjatlh!
HovpoH 701360.7
Stardate 4251.0