February 2017 - tlhIngan-Hol

new words qepHom 2016 (nature, forging, materials)
by Lieven 06 Dec '17

06 Dec '17

At this year's qepHom, we received lots of new words. Some of them were wishes by qepHom attendees and others. Others were used in Andrew Miller's Art presentation in a Museum of Pittsburgh, which happened on the same weekend. Marc Okrand gave me the list in english alphabetical order, so for reading convenience I re-arranged them in a somehow logical order. These are terms about plants, forging, and materials. ---begin quote--- branch (of a tree) bartIq fog, mist vI'laS garden Du'Hom ivy (Terran) tera' 'arDeH ivy-like plant 'arDeH mud, clay, putty DabqI' trunk (of tree) Qechjem'a' cast (cast metal) (v.) Qu forge (metal) (v.) mItlh foundry (n.) baS laSvargh furnace (n.) vIncha' mold (for casting) (n.) QumeH ngaSwI' welded (together) (v.) pet wire (n.) baS SIrgh magnet (n.) peQnagh bronze jey' Sorpuq chalk 'o'roy' chromium velSo' concrete tungyen glass 'al'on stainless steel velSo' 'uSqan steel ghav 'uSqan tin jey' wax req ---end quote--- -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net

2 4

New Beginner's Grammarian?
by John R. Harness 06 Nov '17

06 Nov '17

Hi all -- it has been more than a year since I was named Beginner's Grammarian. I have barely done any of that job because there has been nearly no KLBC traffic. In any case I'd like to formally step down in case anyone else would like to take the position. However, it seems to me that there is so rarely traffic that comes under the BG's purview that the position might remain vacant without consequence. Thanks, John -- Socialist Alternative <http://www.socialistalternative.org/> Klingon Language Institute <http://www.kli.org/>

4 3

-lI': intentional or not?
by SuStel 01 Mar '17

01 Mar '17

There was a discussion on Facebook about whether *-lI'* needs to be intentional progress or not. I'm curious what other list members think. The question: does the verb suffix *-lI'* imply that an agent intentionally set up an end to a process? The arguments in favor: * TKD p. 43 says "*-lI'*, on the other hand, can be used only when there is an implied goal." If something has a goal, someone must have set the process in motion toward that goal. * There are no canonical examples of *-lI'* being used where an agent hasn't set the process in motion toward the goal. * TKD p. 43 says "It is possible to consider *-lI'* a /continuous/ counterpart of *-ta',* and *-taH* a /continuous/ counterpart of *-pu'.*" The difference between *-pu'* and *-ta'* is that the latter implies intentionality, so the difference between *-taH* and *-lI'* is also that the latter implies intentionality. The arguments against: * TKD p. 42 says "Unlike *-taH,* however, *-lI'* implies that the activity has a known goal or a definite stopping point." A definite stopping point is mentioned as an alternative to a known goal, and such does not imply intentional agency. * The example of *vIlI'lI'* on TKD p. 42 says "This word implies that data are in the process of being transmitted, but that there is a finite amount of data, so there will be a definite end to the transmission." This explanation does not reference the transmitter's goal in sending data, only the known end of transmission when there is no more data. The sender may have had a goal, but the explanation this word doesn't mention that. * There are so few canonical examples of *-lI'* that lacking examples of non-intentional progress is not surprising. The arguments in favor say that a sentence like *pumlI' nagh* to refer to a stone that is falling to the ground due to, say, a landslide, is ungrammatical. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

6 24

Klingon Word of the Day: chu'
by qurgh＠wizage.net 28 Feb '17

28 Feb '17

Klingon Word of the Day for Tuesday, February 28, 2017 Klingon word: chu' Part of speech: verb Definition: play (a musical instrument) Source: TKD This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

Rendered fat
by David Holt 28 Feb '17

28 Feb '17

I have a project I'm working on and I would like to figure out the most efficient way to elicit the image of rendered fat as a thing. Is {tlhag} the subject of {'Im} and thus {'Impu'wI'} might work? Or is {tlhag} the object of {'Im} and thus we might have to go with the unwieldy {tlhagh 'Imlu'pu'bogh}? What about {-wI'} with {-lu'} - {'Imlu'pu'wI'}? Jeremy

8 36

Klingon Word of the Day: pop
by qurgh＠wizage.net 27 Feb '17

27 Feb '17

Klingon Word of the Day for Saturday, February 25, 2017 Klingon word: pop Part of speech: noun Definition: reward Source: HQ:v12n3p9 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

Klingon Word of the Day: Dub
by qurgh＠wizage.net 27 Feb '17

27 Feb '17

Klingon Word of the Day for Monday, February 27, 2017 Klingon word: Dub Part of speech: verb Definition: improve Source: TKD This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

3 2

Re: [tlhIngan Hol] -lI': intentional or not?
by PICHLMANN Christoph 27 Feb '17

27 Feb '17

The following could best be described as my gut feeling on the issue, as I certainly didn't look up any rules beyond re-reading what Klingonska.org says about -lI' and -taH . This is what my instinct tells me from my limited experience with klingon. Duj tIvoqtaH after all :-) >The non-restrictive argument would say there is no difference: the >agent's intentions are not described by *-lI',* the speaker is merely >describing an action progressing toward a known stopping point. A rock >pushed off a cliff by a gust of wind could be said to be *pumlI'* >because it is making progress toward the known stopping point of the ground. I'm with that side. If there is a *known* ground below, the stone can only pumlI' . Of course if you don't know how deep it is, and can't see the ground, then pumtaH would be fine - from your point of view the stone might just as well fall forever. But if we can see the ground and you say "pumtaH" to me, I'd expect the stone to fall through the earth and continue to fall until something intentionally blocks its way. Hm. Unless you're talking about the stone at this moment right now. Then -taH would be fitting, but you'd not be talking about the whole "stone drops down" but "stone is currently on the way down" situation. Kind of like knowing the speed of the stone or it's exact location. Christoph ---------------------------------------------- Message: 7 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 13:19:33 -0500 From: SuStel <sustel(a)trimboli.name> To: tlhingan-hol(a)lists.kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] -lI': intentional or not? Message-ID: <58B31C35.4080000(a)trimboli.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed" On 2/26/2017 12:35 PM, Lieven wrote: > Would there be a difference between a stone falling due to the wind > moving it and my intentionally making it drop? Unless you are intentionally personifying the wind and giving it an objective of making the stone hit the ground, the restrictive argument would say yes, there is a difference: if you dropped the stone intending that its goal is the ground you could say *pumlI'* (or *pumtaH*); if the stone fell off a cliff because of a gust of wind, you could only say *pumtaH. * The non-restrictive argument would say there is no difference: the agent's intentions are not described by *-lI',* the speaker is merely describing an action progressing toward a known stopping point. A rock pushed off a cliff by a gust of wind could be said to be *pumlI'* because it is making progress toward the known stopping point of the ground. -- SuStel http://www.trimboli.name/

2 1

Klingon Word of the Day: 'ewrop
by qurgh＠wizage.net 26 Feb '17

26 Feb '17

Klingon Word of the Day for Sunday, February 26, 2017 Klingon word: 'ewrop Part of speech: noun Definition: Europe Source: qepHom 2016 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

1 0

paq'batlhDaq mu'tlhegh
by Brian Cote 25 Feb '17

25 Feb '17

DaHjaj <<paq'batlh>> vIlaDqa' 'ej mu'tlheghvam vItu': "quv vuv nuv pagh ghajbogh neH" /Honor is for those with nothing to loose!/ (paq'raD 19:15) muj mu'tlheghvam pab 'e' vIHar, qar'a'? vaj vIlughmoH 'ej mu'tlheghvam vIlIng: "quv vuv pagh ghajbogh neH nuv'e'" lugh'a'? QImSIr

2 2