October 2017 - tlhIngan-Hol

puchpa' vIpernIS
by Michael Roney, Jr. 30 Oct '17

30 Oct '17

I've been asked to supply Klingon text to label restrooms at a hotel. I presume {loD} and {be'} will suffice, but I figured I'd start a discussion as this list has enjoyed discussing restrooms in the past. They also need a label for a gender neutral restroom. People who use this restroom may object to {loD be' je}. I presume {Hoch} works for this? ~naHQun ~Michael Roney, Jr. Sent from my Palm Prē

7 9

Klingon Word of the Day: tu'qom
by Klingon Word of the Day 30 Oct '17

30 Oct '17

Klingon Word of the Day for Monday, October 30, 2017 Klingon word: tu'qom Part of speech: noun Definition: shape, form, appearance, configuration Source: qepHom 2016 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

Klingon Word of the Day: 'otHa'
by Klingon Word of the Day 30 Oct '17

30 Oct '17

Klingon Word of the Day for Sunday, October 29, 2017 Klingon word: 'otHa' Part of speech: verb Definition: disclose, divulge Source: Netflix Press Release This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

4 4

Klingon Word of the Day: roptoj
by Klingon Word of the Day 30 Oct '17

30 Oct '17

Klingon Word of the Day for Saturday, October 28, 2017 Klingon word: roptoj Part of speech: noun Definition: scar (result of some sort of disease, infection, etc.) Source: qep'a' 24 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

Is the following correct ?
by mayqel qunenoS 30 Oct '17

30 Oct '17

I wonder whether the following sentence is correct: {wa' meqmo' vIQIjlaHbe'bogh pItSa' vIparHa'} because of one reason which I'm unable to explain I like pizza I don't know whether the {meqmo' vIQIjlaHbe'bogh} is correct. ~ nIghma'

1 0

Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Placement of adverbial elements
by mayqel qunenoS 29 Oct '17

29 Oct '17

SuStel: > Not you, mayqel I'm not inventing new rules. I asked in case after the tkd this rule had been expanded to include additional type-5 suffixes. ~ nIghma' On Oct 29, 2017 11:06 PM, "SuStel" <sustel(a)trimboli.name> wrote: > The point of the question was not how to make the locative noun also the > topic noun; the point was to ask whether you could do with any type 5 noun > what you can with a topic noun in moving it to the front. The answer is, > you can’t. > > > > -- > SuStel > http://trimboli.name > > > > *From: *nIqolay Q <niqolay0(a)gmail.com> > *Sent: *Sunday, October 29, 2017 3:57 PM > *To: *tlhingan-hol(a)kli.org > *Subject: *Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Placement of adverbial elements > > > > On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 3:21 PM, SuStel <sustel(a)trimboli.name> wrote: > > On 10/29/2017 2:01 PM, nIqolay Q wrote: > > Since the *-Daq* is optional with verbs of motion like that, you can > sidestep the problem entirely and just use the suffix that we know works > here: *pa''e' nom yIjaH!* > > The point of shifting the noun with *-'e'* is to reflect its grammatical > emphasis by making it the first word you say. A locative noun is not a > topic noun, so putting it first does not reflect its grammatical role. > > Do what the book says here; don't invent new rules. > > I'm not sure what new rule you think I've invented. Take a sentence like *pa' > vIjaH*. Is *pa'* not the direct object of the motion verb? If it's the > object, why can't it be topicalized and moved before an adverbial? If you > wanted to emphasize *pa'* (as opposed to some other destination), why > couldn't you put *-'e'* on it? The point of the question, as I read it, > was what to do if you want to make the locative noun also the topic noun. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > tlhIngan-Hol mailing list > tlhIngan-Hol(a)lists.kli.org > http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org > >

1 0

Placement of adverbial elements
by mayqel qunenoS 29 Oct '17

29 Oct '17

At tkd, section 6.7 p.180 it says: "...The adverbial may actually follow the object noun (but still precede the verb) when the object noun is topicalized by means of the noun suffix -'e'..." I would like to ask: If the object noun doesn't have an -'e', but has another type-5 suffix, then does this same rule apply too ? For example if we write: pa'Daq nom yIjaH go quickly to the room Then would it be correct ? ~ nIghma'

4 8

The Scimitar
by mayqel qunenoS 29 Oct '17

29 Oct '17

Duj law' 'agh Hov leng, 'ej pIj jISIv; Hov leng Dujmey'e', nuq 'IH law' Hoch 'IH puS ? Hov leng Dujmey'e', tlhoy 'IH nuq ? chaq, qaStaHvIS pa'logh, naDev wa'logh mattervam lubop mu'wIj, 'ej ngugh jIghItlh; romuluS valdore 'IH law' Hoch 'IH puS. maj; 'ej jajvam rap vuDwIj; 'a vIra'lu'chugh: Hov leng Duj DamaSbogh yIngu', ghIq jIjang: praetor shinzon's scimitar. DaH, HIyajHa'Qo'; scimitar 'IH law' Hoch 'IH puS, jIjatlhbe'. ..'a scimitar vImaSbej. qatlh ? chaq 'IHqu'be' scimitar, 'a Hurgh, 'ej shinzon's qa' DI'onmey chIwchu'. jatlhta' shinzon: pa', rIymuSDaq, waw' peghDaq scimitar vIchenmoHta'. 'ej shinzon yIn Sovlu'chugh, vaj wa' Doch pIH: Duj chenmoHtaHvIS shinzon, Duj Hurgh, Duj mIgh chenqangmoH. 'ej Dujvetlh chenmoHbejta'.. meqvammo', scimitar vImaSbej. 'enterpray' yInga'.. nIv scimitar. ~ nIghma'

1 0

Re: [tlhIngan Hol] At the qepHom ask about the vonlu'
by Michael Roney, Jr. 29 Oct '17

29 Oct '17

Write your questions down. Attend the qepHom'a' (or other event where MO will be present). Present your questions to him directly. Do not expect instant answers. ~naHQun ~Michael Roney, Jr. Sent from my Palm Prē -------- Original message --------From: mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun(a)gmail.com> Date: 10/29/17 05:32 (GMT-05:00) To: tlhingan-hol(a)kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] At the qepHom ask about the vonlu' nIqolay Q> nor am I the one who has to directly ask Okrand for his time> and effort, so I'm less inclined to demand that others do > those things on my behalf I'm not demanding. I'm suggesting. This is the official mailing list of the klingon language institute. It is not some insignificant group of five individuals. It is expected that on this list, grammar questions which can't be answered through existing canon will appear. And it is expected, that these questions (or at least some of them), will be forwarded by someone to the one who can answer them. The alternative is that noone takes "the time and effort", and these questions remain unanswered.. This can happen too, but I don't think that this would help klingon to develop. I really have a hard time accepting, that in the official mailing list of the klingon language institute, the policy goes by: "don't you even think -let alone suggest- of asking 'oqranD". ~ nIghma' On Oct 29, 2017 3:44 AM, "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0(a)gmail.com> wrote: On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 7:19 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun(a)gmail.com> wrote:How long has the {ngIq} remained unclarified ? Why ? Is there a reason ? vIqawchu'chugh, ngIq was introduced at a qep'a' where Okrand asked Klingonists to look over the text of the opera 'u' that he'd translated, and discussion of new words was done entirely in Klingon. My guess is that nobody asked Okrand for more detail because they assumed they had it figured out from the examples even without a precise English gloss. Same with the question of number agreement with conjunctions -- people probably just went with what felt right without thinking of it as something worth asking about. 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 ? It's possible that the people who have Okrand's email address don't think the questions are that pressing. It's also possible someone's already forwarded them to Okrand and we'll get answers in November. It'd be nice to have these questions answered. But I'm not the one who has to put time and effort into answering those questions, nor am I the one who has to directly ask Okrand for his time and effort, so I'm less inclined to demand that others do those things on my behalf. How many questions would there be ? a maximum of 10 ? Are they so many ? If I put my mind to it and I had a week to kill, I could probably come up with a hundred grammar questions. "How do we use this word" and "can we retcon this goof into grammatical Klingon" and "what is the preferred style or phrasing in this sentence" and "would this construction be interpreted the way I meant it to be interpreted" and so on. _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol(a)lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

2 1

Source of {magh} v. "indicate, reveal"?
by De'vID 27 Oct '17

27 Oct '17

On Oct 1, 2017 00:50, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin(a)gmail.com> wrote: On 28 September 2017 at 19:06, Steven Boozer <sboozer(a)uchicago.edu> wrote: > magh indicate, reveal (v) > What do you have as the source of this definition? I am trying to verify this definition. Anyone? I'm almost convinced that this is an error (or perhaps a trap, since the TKD definition of {magh} is "betray"). My notes claim it's a possible typo, with the source as Star Trek: Communicator. However, the text I have of STC issue #104, which is the only issue I'm aware of where new vocabulary was revealed, does not have this listed. What is the origin of this definition? -- De'vID

2 3