December 2018 - tlhIngan-Hol

Klingon Word of the Day: taQbang
by Klingon Word of the Day 31 Dec '18

31 Dec '18

Klingon Word of the Day for Monday, December 31, 2018 Klingon word: taQbang Part of speech: noun Definition: slang for either "urine" or "fecal matter" Source: qep'a' 23 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

1 0

Klingon Word of the Day: 'InSep
by Klingon Word of the Day 30 Dec '18

30 Dec '18

Klingon Word of the Day for Sunday, December 30, 2018 Klingon word: 'InSep Part of speech: noun Definition: penis Source: qepHom 2018 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

1 0

{Sep}ngan vs {Sep} loD
by mayqel qunenoS 29 Dec '18

29 Dec '18

In order to say that someone is a cardassian, we use the suffix {-ngan}, which means inhabitant: {qarDaS} + {-ngan} = qarDaSngan = inhabitant of cardassia. The problem though is, that a cardassian, i.e. someone of the cardassian race, isn't just an "inhabitant" of cardassia. He *is* in a way a *part* of his homeworld, i.e. he feels his homeworld being a part of himself. If he moved to kronos, and stayed there forever, perhaps he would become an inhabitant of kronos, but he wouldn't identify himself as a klingon. And of course, he wouldn't fight (let alone die) for kronos, something which he would certainly do for cardassia. So, I can't understand, how in order to say "he is cardassian", it is sufficient to say {qarDaSngan ghaH} i.e. "he's an inhabitant of cardassia". Why not say instead {qarDaS loD ghaH} i.e. "he is a man of cardassia" ? Or maybe even {qarDaS Segh loD ghaH} i.e. "he is a man of the cardassian race" ? Or {qarDaS mut loD ghaH} i.e. "he is a man of the cardassian species" ? I just think that being from somewhere, means way more than just that you inhabit this place. ~ mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS

3 2

-chuqmoH & -'eghmoH
by David Holt 29 Dec '18

29 Dec '18

The paq'batlh contains the sentence {Qo'noS tuqmey muvchuqmoH qeylIS} (p.179) implying that we can use {-chuq} with {-moH} to reflexively refer to the subject of the main verb (which has become the object of the verb with {-moH}). Do we have other evidence of the same? How about with {-'eghmoH} to say something/someone makes them do the verb to themself? (Possible example: {puq Say''eghmoH SoS}.) Any evidence of that sort of construction? What about using {'egh} with {-moH} on a verb with no object to reflexively refer to the subject of {-moH} as also the subject of the main verb? (Possible example: {nguv'eghmoH DIjwI'}.) Do we have any evidence of that? What do you think of using it that way? And how about using {-chuq} with {-moH} to reflexively refer to the subject of {-moH} as also the subject of the main verb, saying that they cause each other to do/be the main verb? (Possible example: {rIQchuqmoH SuvwI'}.) Do we have any evidence of that? What do you think of using it that way? Jeremy

5 12

Klingon Word of the Day: ghanHa'
by Klingon Word of the Day 29 Dec '18

29 Dec '18

Klingon Word of the Day for Saturday, December 29, 2018 Klingon word: ghanHa' Part of speech: verb Definition: be peaceful, be calm Source: qepHom 2016 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

1 0

Can we use {-ghach} on a verb with only a rover ?
by mayqel qunenoS 28 Dec '18

28 Dec '18

In order to use {-ghach} on a verb, this verb needs to have a suffix, e.g. {naDqa'ghach} for "re-commendation". If though, this verb doesn't have a suffix of one of the 9 types of verb suffixes, but has only a rover, then can we {-ghach} it anyway ? I know that we can say {naDHa'ghach} for "discommendation", but since the {-Ha'} is a "fixed" rover (with regards to its position in a verb), I was wondering: Can we say e.g. {Quchbe'ghach} for "unhappiness" ? Or {QuchQo'ghach} for "the condition/state of refusing to be happy" ? mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS

2 1

Klingon Word of the Day: mu'tlhegh
by Klingon Word of the Day 28 Dec '18

28 Dec '18

Klingon Word of the Day for Friday, December 28, 2018 Klingon word: mu'tlhegh Part of speech: noun Definition: sentence Source: TKD This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

1 0

Using aspect as tense
by mayqel qunenoS 28 Dec '18

28 Dec '18

One of the most common mistakes of using aspect, is using it as tense. Which is a mistake I tend to often do.. But the problem is, that when I'm doing this mistake, I don't even realize it. So, could someone write a few examples, where aspect is being used as tense, as an example of what to actually avoid ? mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS

2 5

Maltz on {DIj}
by Lieven L. Litaer 28 Dec '18

28 Dec '18

peqIm, Maltz told me that the object of {DIj} is the thing you paint on. We are all constantly learning, and I can definitely admit that I've misinterpreted a verb: {QaghlIj yIchID; yIyoH} After all, we all know there are so many unclear verbs that need some clarification. Thanks to De'vID for pointing me at this, by the way. Here's the complete message from Marc Okrand, received today, 03 Sep 2018: --- Hi, Lieven — The object of {DIj} is the thing that's actually touched by a {rItlh naQ} resulting in a picture (or pattern or whatever) on a {nagh beQ}. So you'd say {nagh beQ yIDIj} "Paint the stone panel!" (and several variant translations). This does not tell you what you are to portray on the panel. For that, Maltz says, there are two ways to go. In one way, you use the word {cha'} "show, display." So, for example, you could say {DI'raq Dacha'meH nagh beQ yIDIj} "Paint the stone panel with [a picture of] a sheep!" (literally: "Paint the stone panel with a pigment stick so that you display a sheep!"). Since {DIj} is already associated with {nagh beQ}, both in its literal meaning of "stone panel" (or the like) and its extended meaning of the artwork produced by this process (that is, what we'd call a "painting"), you can leave {nagh beQ} out and just say {DI'raq Dacha'meH yIDIj} "Paint [a picture of] a sheep!" The second way makes use of the word {nargh}, which means both "appear" and "escape." You can say {DI'raq DanarghmoHmeH nagh beQ yIDIj} "Paint the stone panel with [a picture of] a sheep!" or, leaving {nagh beQ} out (as noted above), {DI'raq DanarghmoHmeH yIDIj}, which could be translated as "Paint [a picture of] a sheep!" But the literal meaning of these phrases is more interesting: "Paint (the stone panel) with a pigment stick so that you cause the sheep to appear!" or "Paint (the stone panel) with a pigment stick so that you cause the sheep to escape!" This is similar to the usage of {qon} "record" for composing music or writing stories. That is, the picture of the sheep already exists somehow in the stone, and the artist/painter (the {DIjwI'}) is enabling the picture to escape the confines of the stone and to appear to us. Another way of doing this is without the {-moH} suffix. You can say {narghmeH DI'raq (nagh beQ) yIDIj} "Paint (the stone panel with) [a picture of] a sheep!" Literally, this is something like "In order for the sheep to escape/appear, paint (the stone panel) with a pigment stick!" This construction is heard less frequently. I used the verb "paint" in the translations of the examples above, but the meaning of {DIj} has expanded to include producing a visual image even if no paint or pigment stick is involved — it's used if you sketch with a pencil, for example. So it's okay to translate {DIj} as "draw." But the object of {DIj} is still what you're drawing on (paper, a stone, whatever), not what you're making a drawing of. So {DI'raq yIDIj} might be translated "Draw (something) on a sheep!" while both {DI'raq Dacha'meH yIDIj} and {DI'raq DanarghmoHmeH yIDIj} can be translated "Draw a sheep!" If you're painting (or drawing) on something other than a {nagh beQ}, you should specify what that is: {DI'raq Dacha'meH nav yIDIj} or {DI'raq DanarghmoHmeH nav yIDIj} "Draw a sheep on the paper!" Maltz said that both the {cha'} and {nargh} versions are used, but the {cha'} version is a bit more common in informal settings and the {nargh} version (usually the {narghmoH} variant) is more common in literature or in discussions about art. Maltz also said that you can use these constructions if you're drawing using a computer or with an Etch A Sketch (Zaubertafel?) (this despite the fact that what the Etch A Sketch is doing is more like {ghItlh}-ing than {DIj}-ing). I hope all of this doesn't cause any problems or delays for "The Little Prince" (and I also hope that I haven't opened up Pandora's {DerlIq}). - Marc ---------------------------------------- -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/MarcOkrand

3 3

Can we say {'op ret ngaj} ?
by mayqel qunenoS 27 Dec '18

27 Dec '18

Suppose that the {qen} died in glorious combat. Or that it just went on vacation, so its currently unavailable.. Could we say {'op ret ngaj}, for "an short time ago" ? mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS

5 5