[tlhIngan Hol] More gender

nIqolay Q niqolay0 at gmail.com
Wed May 29 09:29:00 PDT 2019


On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 12:01 PM Riley Dosh <rjl.dosh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Qapla'!
>
> ghojchoHwI' jIH. tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhHa', 'ach mu'ghom vIlaDlaH. wej
> ngoDHommey jIHvaD vIghajbe'.
>
> I noticed talk about neutral gender yesterday, which leads me to ask about
> LGBT terminology as a whole, since it's heavily gendered language.
>
> Concerning trans people, I've defaulted to be' ghe'/be' ghe'pu' and loD
> ghe'/loD ghe'pu', but I welcome any suggestions.
>

The versions with *-pu'* would need to be relative clauses, since verbs
used as adjectives can't take *-pu'*. *ghe'pu'bogh be'* or *ghe'pu'bogh loD*.
You might also try the *-ta'* suffix, which indicates a completed
accomplishment, as in *ghe'ta'bogh be'*. In an LGBT context it's probably
fine, but outside of LGBT contexts it probably wouldn't immediately be
interpreted as a reference to trans people.


> As for gay/lesbian/bi and straight people, I'm have no idea, although I
> know it's been at least implied by MO before. Anybody know how one would
> say that?
>

There aren't really any words regarding sexual orientation or attraction,
so translating those concepts might be wordy.

There's also the issue of how exactly relative clauses with *nga'chuq*
would work. *nga'chuqbogh loDpu' loD'e' je* for "man who has sex with
men"? *nga'chuqbogh
be'pu' loDpu' be''e' je* for "woman who has sex with men and women"? Such a
construction might be acceptable, but without further insight, it's
definitely pushing up against the boundaries of the known grammar. *ngagh*
doesn't have that particular issue, but I'm not sure it has quite the right
connotations.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190529/6875c5dc/attachment.html>


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list