January 2018 - tlhIngan-Hol

Re: [tlhIngan Hol] jItlhojpu'..
by mayqel qunenoS 29 Jan '18

29 Jan '18

let alone the fact that.. tlhIngan Hol ghItlhqu'lu'; net Hechbe'chugh, vaj qatlh tlhIngan Hol ghojchoHlu'pu' ? If someone doesn't intend to actually write klingon, then why has he begun learning it, in the first place ? hmm.. ~ nI'ghma On Jan 29, 2018 6:36 PM, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun(a)gmail.com> wrote: qaStaHvIS pa'logh, wa' jaj tlhIngan Hol vIghojchoH.. Dorpu'DI' jajvam, 'ej ghIq qaSpu'DI' latlh jaj puS, wa' vIt potlh vItlhojchoH. tlhIngan Hol ghojlu'meH, tlhoy tlhIngan Hol ghItlhnISlu'. qaSbe'chugh wanI'vam, vaj ghojlaHbe'bej vay'. unless someone writes his brains out, he will never learn ~ nI'ghma

2 1

jItlhojpu'..
by mayqel qunenoS 29 Jan '18

29 Jan '18

qaStaHvIS pa'logh, wa' jaj tlhIngan Hol vIghojchoH.. Dorpu'DI' jajvam, 'ej ghIq qaSpu'DI' latlh jaj puS, wa' vIt potlh vItlhojchoH. tlhIngan Hol ghojlu'meH, tlhoy tlhIngan Hol ghItlhnISlu'. qaSbe'chugh wanI'vam, vaj ghojlaHbe'bej vay'. unless someone writes his brains out, he will never learn ~ nI'ghma

1 0

Klingon Word of the Day: pItlhbergh
by Klingon Word of the Day 29 Jan '18

29 Jan '18

Klingon Word of the Day for Monday, January 29, 2018 Klingon word: pItlhbergh Part of speech: noun Definition: Pittsburgh (US) Source: qepHom 2016 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

1 0

HolQeD V6-N1
by demonchaux.aurelie 29 Jan '18

29 Jan '18

Hi all, Savan ! :) While reading Captain Krankor's contribution in HolQeD Vol 6, Number 1, I wondered if there was any other way to solve the problem he raised. Basically the issue was that the rule banning aspect suffixes after the 'e' in a sentence-as-object structure was making it impossible to translate a seemingly simple sentence: The engineer attacked while I was watching the engineer fix the transporter ionizer unit. (*) jolvoy' tI' jonwI' 'e' vIbejtaHvIS HIv jagh The above translation would be perfect except for the fact that the -taH suffix is both forbidden (because it comes after the 'e') and required before -vIS. So I thought of 2 possible solutions to try and work around it: 1/ the relative clause jolvoy' tI'bogh jonwI''e' vIbejtaHvIS HIv jagh (The enemy attacked while I was watching the engineer who was fixing the transporter ionizer unit) Pros: - grammatical Cons: - the focus of the "watching" is on the engineer rather than the whole action 2/ Nominalization and noun-noun construction jonwI' jolvoy' tI'lI'ghach vIbejtaHvIS HIv jagh (The enemy attacked while I was watching the engineer's fixing of the ionizer unit) Pros: - the focus of the "watching" is still on the entire action (the fixing of the unit by the engineer) Cons: - It may be heavy and unnatural to have a -ghach verb and a noun-noun construction with 3 nouns. What do you think on this one? Do you have other ideas on how to translate this sentence? ghItlhjaj PS: (Apologies if this has already been discussed elsewhere, if so I could not find the thread) Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy.

4 3

Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Expressing "all of us"
by seruq 29 Jan '18

29 Jan '18

I read [Hoch maH] as " all the us's", "all the we's", as in multiple groups. It is not speaking of the entirety of a single group. As for [maH Hoch], similar to the plural suffix, unless you need to remove ambiguity, then no need to use it. Just use maH. But I can see the possibility of it's use. A: mab wIlaj maH B: chaq bolaj tlhIH 'op neH A: maghwI' vIHoH, DaH wIlaj maH Hoch - DloraH

3 2

Expressing "all of us"
by mayqel qunenoS 29 Jan '18

29 Jan '18

Sometime ago, I had asked of a way to say "all of us", as if in "all of us like cats". In particular, I had asked if we could write {vIghro' DImuSHa' Hoch}. And as we had said back then, we can't say something like this because it would violate the accord rule. maj. However, I just had an idea, which I would like to discuss. Why not write: {vIghro'mey DImuSHa' maH Hoch} ? all of us love cats Does it violate any rule ? I think it is correct and grammatical. Let alone that we could place an {-'e'} on the {Hoch} for added emphasis, thus writing {vIghro'mey DImuSHa' maH Hoch'e'}. Anyway, if anyone believes it is wrong, then do tell me before I start using it. Because qeylIS knows, I will be using as if there's no tomorrow.. ~ nI'ghma

4 11

Klingon Word of the Day: yuwey
by Klingon Word of the Day 29 Jan '18

29 Jan '18

Klingon Word of the Day for Saturday, January 27, 2018 Klingon word: yuwey Part of speech: noun Definition: continent Source: qep'a' 24 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

3 2

boQwI' pronunciation
by David Holt 29 Jan '18

29 Jan '18

De'vID, I don't know if qurgh has shown you his new game that he has created. It requires one to listen to your boQwI' pronunciations and type out what you hear. I've noticed a few complications with the pronunciations, but the biggest one for me is that it seems you pronounce your {a} differently depending on the consonant that precedes it. When boQwI' says {qam} I hear [qam] as I expect. But when I listen to {lam} without being able to see the word, I hear [læm]. https://hol.kag.org/sentence/qam+lam+qam+lam+qam+lam I suspect that you may be allowing the forward consonants to pull your {a} forward and with the slight raise of the tongue, especially for the {l}, I'm often hearing your {a} as an {e}. Do you (and others here) agree that the difference is there? Is this something you're doing intentionally? Is it something that should be fixed? Jeremy

3 2

Klingon Word of the Day: tellarngan
by Klingon Word of the Day 28 Jan '18

28 Jan '18

Klingon Word of the Day for Sunday, January 28, 2018 Klingon word: tellarngan Part of speech: noun Definition: Tellarite Source: qep'a' 24 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

1 0

Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Expressing "all of us"
by mayqel qunenoS 28 Jan '18

28 Jan '18

Thank you all for replying. Reading your replies, I learned something important, something which eluded me so far. I didn't know that in a noun-noun construction, where the second noun is {Hoch} or {HochHom}, that this second noun is the head-noun. All this time I believed, that some special rules apply, with regards to the {Hoch} and {HochHom}. But apparently they don't, so I learned something important, thanks. However, as Rhona Fenwick pointed out, why not use {Hoch maH} ? Even if {maH Hoch} indeed violates the accord rule, the {Hoch maH} evades the accord problem, so everything is ok. So, unless someone disagrees with Rhona, I will be using {Hoch maH}, which I like a lot. Thank you QeS, for sharing this idea. ~ nI'ghma On Jan 28, 2018 10:04, "Rhona Fenwick" <qeslagh(a)hotmail.com> wrote: ghItlhpu' mayqel, jatlhpu': > Sometime ago, I had asked of a way to say "all of us", as if in "all of us like cats". (poD vay') > {vIghro'mey DImuSHa' maH Hoch} ? > all of us love cats As others have pointed out, since the head of the phrase *maH Hoch* is still *Hoch*, it should condition third-person agreement. With that said, I think that it should not be *maH Hoch* as nIqolay suggests, but *Hoch maH*. *Hoch* thus acts as a normal quantifier for its nominal (in this case, pronominal) head. For instance, we know *Hoch nuvpu'* is "all of the people", and we also know from *paq'batlh* that *Hoch negh* is "all of the soldiers" (*paq'raD* 11.21), and it's only a very small step to go from these to *Hoch maH*, which should take first-person plural agreement. We don't have any canon examples, but I feel it's a natural extension of the properties of both *Hoch* and pronouns as outlined in TKD 5.1. I don't think it's the least bit unnatural to say, for instance, *targh DIparHa' 'op maH 'ach vIghro' DIparHa' Hoch maH* "some of us like targs, but all of us like cats". Whether we can leave out the free pronoun *maH* to give the same meaning is, of course, an entirely different kettle of *qagh*. Many pro-drop languages permit this: Georgian, Turkish, Finnish and Spanish, at least. But we can't in good conscience assume that Klingon also does this, not least because Klingon seems to be more rigid with its targets of agreement than many Earth languages are. jangpu' SuStel, jatlh: > The fierceness with which people desire a y'all in Klingon horrifies me. This is no different. I disagree strongly. Not only are the conversational implicatures of speaking *to* a bunch of people versus speaking *on behalf of* a bunch of people quite different, but a vast array of human languages with rigidly defined number agreement are quite happy to allow plural pronouns of all sorts to be quantified. What's more, in Klingon there's nothing we know explicitly about either *maH* or *Hoch* that should in principle get in the way of our using them together should the situation call for it. The *only* problem we have is that we just don't have an explicit canon example illustrating how or whether Klingon quantifies pronouns, though I believe we have enough information about both quantifiers and free pronouns to be able to extrapolate (in the absence of a contradictory formal rule, at least). Also, no less a speaker than Seqram consciously lampshaded the "all of us" question at the end of his article about *Hoch* more than two decades ago ( *HolQeD* 5:2.11), so with all due respect (and I do have much respect for you), maybe ease up a bit on being horrified. QeS 'utlh _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol(a)lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

3 4