[tlhIngan Hol] XQeD -> Xtej

[David Holt]

If you decide to add {DI'ruj tej} (and mark it as derived, not revealed) I would definitely go with the English gloss of "metaphysicist" since that associates in the same way as "physicist", but very differently from the common understanding of "physician".

Jeremy


________________________________
From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces at lists.kli.org> on behalf of De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 10:34 AM
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol at kli.org>
Subject: [tlhIngan Hol] XQeD -> Xtej


On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 16:16, nIqolay Q <niqolay0 at gmail.com<mailto:niqolay0 at gmail.com>> wrote:
ghaytan mu' qID meqna' 'oHbe' meqvetlh'e'. Dochmey loS roSqa'tejpu' 'e' vIrIch neH vIneH.

Your use of {roSqa'tej} reminded me of something.

At the 2014 Saarbrücken {qepHom'a'} (and possibly on other occasions), Okrand made a remark along the lines that, generally, if there's a {QeD}, there's a corresponding {tej}. Sometimes he explicitly reveals a {tej} for a {QeD}, but sometimes he doesn't.

Do people who maintain lexicons for themselves generally add the corresponding {tej} when a {QeD} is revealed, for consistency and convenience? I'm in the unusual position* that I maintain a lexicon (the {boQwI'} database) which is used mostly by other people, so if I have an entry for "quantum physicist" (because Okrand revealed {'otlhQeD} and {'otlhtej} together), and an entry for {HapQeD} "physics" but *not* a corresponding entry for {Haptej} "physicist", it looks inconsistent.

"Physicist", "chemist", and "genealogist" are common enough words, and their Klingon etymology obvious enough, that I'm going to add entries for them. However, I'm hesitant to add "archaeologist" or "geneticist" since the {QeD} isn't attached to a known word in {roSqa'QeD} or {rayQeD}. Or would people accept {roSqa'tej} and {raytej} as legitimate "dictionary words" under the {XQeD} -> {Xtej} rule-of-thumb?

(In the other direction: Is there anyone who would *not* accept {Haptej} for "physicist", simply because Okrand didn't *explicitly* write it out somewhere, despite the fact that Okrand explained the rule for deriving it, and explicitly revealed the pair {'otlhQeD}-{'otlhtej} for a *specific* type of physicist?)

I'm on the fence about  {DI'ruj tej}, which would be something like "metaphysicist" or "metaphysician", because it's kind of an obscure word in English. Should I add an entry for it?

I suppose I'm not completely consistent, because another productive rule is that any place name can have {ngan} attached. But I'm not adding terms for "Londoner", "Berliner" (the person, not the doughnut), etc., because they're both obvious and numerous.

*Besides {boQwI'}, the only popular Klingon lexicons used by many people (which I'm aware of) are hol.kag.org<http://hol.kag.org> and klingonska.org<http://klingonska.org>. The KLI new words list is different from these in that its mission is to document only new words revealed (explicitly) by Okrand, so it makes that that list would have {'otlhtej} but not {Haptej}, if Okrand revealed the former but not the latter.

--
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190726/3347a798/attachment-0001.htm>