[tlhIngan Hol] Curses, epithets, and invectives grading

[ghunchu'wI' 'utlh]

You may consider this a rant.


On Sep 4, 2017, at 10:39 AM, Anthony Appleyard <a.appleyard at btinternet.com> wrote:
> petaQ seems to be a noun.

Yes, epithets are names, and names are treated as nouns.

> Some of them can be analyzed:-

What are you using to "analyze" Klingon words? You post this sort of stuff a lot, and sometimes it seems a bit off, but these are particularly bizarre.

> Qu'vatlh may mean:-
> - N:[duty|quest|mission|task|chore] I:100;x60,x60+(with_minutes_after_last_midnight)

Where does any of this come from? The last half doesn't seem to be based on anything I know. If you are accepting an attempt to put the number-forming element for "100" on a non-number word, you need to stop that right now and discard whatever it is that was suggesting it.

> ghuy' may mean:-
> - S:Klingon_curse,_damn

What source gives the "damn" meaning?

> petaQ may mean:-
> - PP:impv_pl/- V:be_weird

You started off by saying it's a noun. Now you're analyzing it as a command. That is not helpful in answering the original question.

> yIntagh may mean:-
> - N:life_support_system

That's missing the relevant definition for this thread.

> ghu'cha' may mean:-
> - N:situation I:2

You repeated the OP's spelling error, but the "analysis" of the misspelled word is still basically nonsense.



Would your flaky analysis tool tell you that {toDSaH} means anything? If it tries to parse it as a pair of verbs smushed together, it needs to be thrown away and you need to start using a more reliable method for understanding Klingon words. Might I suggest instead employing a human brain, uninfluenced by someone's bad attempt at programming a computer to recognize syllables? That analyzer is probably doing more to prevent you from learning Klingon than to help you.

-- ghunchu'wI'