[tlhIngan Hol] At the qepHom ask about the vonlu'

mayqel qunenoS mihkoun at gmail.com
Sat Oct 28 04:19:57 PDT 2017

nIqolay Q:
> Okrand is just one person, he can't anticipate every possible
> question

Yes indeed; but here we're not talking about creating new words. If that
was the case, then someone could say -and be correct-, that it isn't
humanly possible for someone to create in an artificial language, the
entire vocabulary of a real language.

But the problem here is, that we're talking abour grammar. And the
questions aren't that many.

How long has the {ngIq} remained unclarified ? Why ? Is there a reason ?

Is it so hard, for someone who communicates with 'oqranD and organizes the
qepHom, to compile a list with the grammar which needs clarification and
send it to 'oqranD before the qepHom asking for clarification ? How many
questions would there be ? a maximum of 10 ? Are they so many ?

~ nIghma'

On Oct 27, 2017 7:30 PM, "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:59 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Another thing which perhaps needs clarification is the vonlu'.
>> A little bird told me, that at the kgt it is written {bIvonlu'pu'}
>> instead of {Davonlu'pu'}.
>> So, this raises the question, whether the {-lu'} shoved up the {von} of
>> {vonlu'} is the indefinite subject suffix which we all know and love, or
>> whether it is just a {lu'} which happened to cross the street while this
>> word was being created.
>> So, could someone write {vonlu'lu'} for "someone has failed utterly " ?
> It's a slang term, so it might not obey grammar rules 100%. My guess is
> either it's simply a typo for *Davonlu'pu'*, or the slang meaning uses
> prefixes with *-lu'* in an unusual way that was unelaborated on. The
> literal translation of the slang term is "someone has trapped you", so it
> would make sense for the *-lu'* to be still considered as the suffix
> itself, even if they use prefixes differently with it. So I don't think it
> would make much sense to say *vonlu'lu'*. But it's slang anyway, so maybe
> the meaning would still get across even if it's not 100% grammatical.
> And if it is indeed the indefinite subject suffix {-lu'}, then for
>> "someone again failed utterly", do we write {vonqa'lu'} or {vonlu'qa'} ?
>> Because if we write {vonqa'lu'} how would someone be able to differentiate
>> from the {vonqa'lu'} which would mean "someone trapped him/them again" ?
> If the *-lu'* is supposed to be the suffix and not a part of the verb,
> which is probably the case, then it should be *vonqa'lu'*. Context will
> make it clear whether someone means the literal "he/she has been entrapped
> again" vs. "he/she has failed utterly again" -- if the person in question
> is not literally in a trap of some kind, then it's probably the latter.
>> I'm tired of having to "throw the cards" (greek expression meaning
>> "trying to guess"), in order to clarify grammar which should have been
>> already clarified at numerous qep'a'mey and qepHommey so far (as is the
>> case with {ngIq}, the verb prefix after a {joq}, etc etc etc..).
> It's entirely possible these questions had simply never come up before.
> Most communication can be done just fine without having to get too close to
> unfamiliar grammatical territory. For instance, I've been fiddling around
> with Klingon since the late nineties, and the question of number agreement
> with *joq* hadn't occured to me until a year or so ago. And the stuff
> from the slang section of KGT doesn't come up very often; most discussion
> here is done in "formal" Klingon. Okrand is just one person, he can't
> anticipate every possible question, and it's not like we can lock him in a
> room and make him answer every question we've ever had. There's not many
> Klingonists to begin with, so it might be a while before somebody notices
> some issue. This is just one of the things you have to accept if you're
> going to study a fictional language designed by one person.
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20171028/bfc6b4a0/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list