November 2019 - tlhIngan-Hol

Suffix-number questions in the KLCP test
by Dirk Schlösser 26 Nov '19

26 Nov '19

Hi, I recently retried to take the KLCP 1 test, but I knew after 5 minutes that I can't pass it. That is because I got like 4-5 questions that asked for the number of a suffix. I wanted to ask the question: Why are those there. They don't let you know, if the person taking the test speaks klingon. All it does is a) force you to remember useless numbers and b) kick out all intuitive learners. I mean, I get, that the people making those test questions want to know, if the person taking the test can put the suffixes in the right order, but to be honest, a intuitive learner like me, will have a hard time to get those questions right. I can't remember the numbers. If I try, it will take an immense amount of work (like a week or so) and I will still forget the numbers after like an hour. And I think, I'm not the only one. The thing is, intuitive learners will still be able to put the suffixes in the correct order and they will know, if they are in the wrong order, if you show them a word, but those questions for the number will sort prevent them from passing the test very easily. Also, I think, native klingons wouldn't be able to pass the test, because almost no native speaker would be able to tell you the number of a certain suffix. So, I would be happy, if the KLI could think about changing these questions to something more fitting or at least explain to me, why they have to be like they are. This is the end of my rant, I hope I didn't sound too much like a ragemonster. with regards QIDwI'

9 16

additional new word: tanje'rIn
by Lieven L. Litaer 26 Nov '19

26 Nov '19

I'm not sure it was mentioned here, so sorry for double message. In a Facebook post of November 16, Robyn Stewart told the story how Okrand revealed the word for "tangerine", an orange like fruit. DaHjaj po tera' na'ran vISoplI' 'ach wIb 'oH. jIjatlh, wIbmo' tera' na'ranvam, tera' na'ran wIb 'oHlaw' 'ach tera' na'ran wIb 'oHbe'. raSmajDaq paw marq 'oqranD 'ej tera' na'ran SopchoH ghaH. ghaHvaD jIjatlh, wIb tera' na'ran vISoppu'bogh. wIb'a' na'ranlIj? jatlh marq, tera' na'ran 'oHbe'. tanje'rIn 'oH. (qaStaHvIS tup {na'ranHom} qel 'ach mu' {tanje'rIn} wIv). (TFW when Klingons use a more precise vocabulary set for Earth fruits than I, a native-born Terran, do.) SKI: new Klingon word: tanje'rIn - the Earth fruit that Qov calls an orange, but the kind that peels easily and breaks into segments without getting juice on your fingers. (Facebook Post of Nov 16, 2019) This message is now also stored in the Word part of the Wiki, as will the other information as well soon: http://www.klingonwiki.net/Word/Tanje-rIn -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany"

11 20

Klingon Word of the Day: vI'Hop
by Klingon Word of the Day 26 Nov '19

26 Nov '19

Klingon Word of the Day for Tuesday, November 26, 2019 Klingon word: vI'Hop Part of speech: noun Definition: indirect object Source: qep'a' 26 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

4 3

{chol} {ghoS} difference
by mayqel qunen'oS 26 Nov '19

26 Nov '19

Recently, I'm being troubled by the difference (if there's any) between the meanings of {chol} and the specific meanings of {ghoS} of "approach, proceed, come, follow (a course)", (i.e. excluding the "go away from" meaning). Let me describe, how I understand this difference, and if I'm wrong (which is usually the case), then please, do correct me. You're in america, and I'm in greece. If I say {Sachol}. then this means that "I get closer to you", but I don't reach the united states. While I'm {chol}ing, I'm travelling towards you, with the distance between us, becoming smaller. But if I say {SaghoS}, then based on the Ca'Non {bIghHa' yIghoS} "go to jail", it means that I actually reach the united states, i.e. I actually come to you. That's how I understand the difference, but since I'm probably wrong, if someone could clarify this, it would be great. ~ bara'qa'

4 3

Re: [tlhIngan Hol] suffix numbering
by Chris O'Regan 26 Nov '19

26 Nov '19

I thought I would try to offer a response to QIDwI' on the question of 'why are the suffixes' necessary from my perspective as someone who is currently studying for Level 1 of the KLCP. I agree that knowing the suffix numbering is probably the least important part of the test. That said, I don't feel like it's arbitrary or there is no point to it - I feel like learning the order has helped me learn important rules. I have been trying to learn them by rote with some success. I appreciate learning by rote is not always fun but I feel like it's sometimes necessary in learning any language. I agree with SuStel's point that someone acquiring a second language is going to have to learn more explicit grammar than a native speaker. It's probably impossible for a native English speaker to learn Klingon without being explicitly familiar with the grammatical concepts of 'subject' and 'object' for example. If I was a native speaker of Russian, I wouldn't have to know the terminology of the 'dative' case, I would already know how it worked intuitively without having to name it. However as a non-native speaker, when I am learning Russian I have to learn to recognise all the case endings and learn what circumstances it is used in. I think it's fair that a test of my Russian knowledge as a learner would be to give an example noun and say 'what case is this noun in?' Because case is important to learning Russian, explicitly knowing the names of the cases helps a lot. Learning the suffix types gives a learner a few advantages: it tells me that (e.g.) the suffixes -mo', -vaD, -Daq, -vo' and -'e' all have something in common. It tells me what suffixes I can put on the first noun of a noun-noun construction. It groups the suffixes together conceptually so that I'm not tempted to say something like 'that friend of mine' as **junvetlhwI' or whatever. Not to say that as a learner I couldn't come up with strategies to do all these things without learning the type numbers; but learning the type numbers makes it slightly easier. Learning a language is about learning the patterns, and sometimes being able to name the patterns helps, both in keeping them straight in your own head and in simply being able to talk about them with other learners. Anyway, this is probably not anything new to the po'wI'pu' on this list. I just feel like it's wrong to describe learning the type numbers as arbitrary - they are useful. rIn. Message: 18 > Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:21:48 -0500 > From: SuStel <sustel(a)trimboli.name> > To: tlhingan-hol(a)lists.kli.org > Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Suffix-number questions in the KLCP test > Message-ID: <64d7a278-0d0d-db22-e128-5f201618276c(a)trimboli.name> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" > > On 11/25/2019 2:54 PM, Will Martin wrote: > > 1. If you are so good at knowing what suffix follows what, then it > > shouldn?t be so difficult for you to map out which numbered suffix it > > is. You know most of the suffixes, and you know how many Types there > > are (5 for nouns, 9 for verbs, plus rovers). Pull out a scrap of paper > > and doodle them out. It?s not that hard. > > He's not complaining that he can't figure it out; he's complaining that > knowing the numbers isn't necessary to speaking the language? > > If you learn Klingon through Duolingo, for instance, you may not even be > aware that suffixes have numbers. You may know the suffixes and their > orders, but you didn't realize they were numbered. > > When I took that test, I had to do exactly what you said: I had > memorized the word *QaghHommeyHeylIjmo'* so that I would have a map to > noun suffixes, because I didn't think in terms of numbers; I just felt > which ones came first. To this day I can't always rattle off noun suffix > numbers without thinking about them. Learning the numbers has little to > do with speaking the language. > > > > 2. Tests are arbitrary. ALL tests are arbitrary. It?s okay for tests > > to be arbitrary. If you eliminate one arbitrary part of a test, you?ll > > just have to replace it with some other arbitrary thing that someone > > ELSE will object to. > > I object completely to everything you say in this paragraph. Tests are > not supposed to be arbitrary. Tests are supposed to evaluate your > knowledge and skill in the given subject. They should be designed to > expose the ability of the person taking them. Being able to tell whether > something is a type 1 or type 2 suffix is, as QIDwI' says, no different > than someone being able to define what a participle is to prove their > ability to speak English. > > In this point, the KLI tests test knowledge of Klingon grammar, not > ability to use Klingon. > > > > 3. Respect that the people who created these tests did so voluntarily, > > putting in a lot of time and thought in to what they sincerely thought > > would help people learn the language well. Complaints like this don?t > > make them feel good about that positive spirit they put into their > > sincere effort to give our nerdy little society another helpful > > resource. Whine too much about this sort of thing and we won?t have > > any tests, or Wikis or Web sites or mailing lists, for that matter. > > Appreciate what people do for you and for all of us. So, what resource > > have YOU created from hours of your own work that you voluntarily > > offered to the rest of us? Share with us how much you appreciate it > > when someone complains about how poorly executed your effort was. > > So now you've implied that QIDwI' is disrespectful, whining, and a > layabout. C'mon. He's tried to present a respectful criticism, and I for > one think he has a point. > > I happen to think that most anyone learning English as a second language > is going to learn more grammar than a native English speaker, so someone > being tested in English as a second language /would/ need to know the > definition of a participle. A native speaker wouldn't be tested in their > ability to speak English, so the ability to explain the grammar isn't > tested anywhere except in an English class that's teaching grammar. > > So ultimately I see the inclusion of suffix numbers on the KLI test as > parallel to the inclusion of grammar rules in an > English-as-a-second-language test, so probably appropriate. But I > appreciate QIDwI''s point. I don't think testing on suffix numbers is > strictly /necessary./ > > > > 4. If you are so naturally talented that you can intuitively absorb > > the language and know all the suffixes in the right order without > > learning the numbers of the suffix, then why are you bothering to take > > the test? > > Now you're just being offensive. If you love the Klingon language so > much, why don't you marry it? > > > > A primary reason for creating the test is to give people guidance > > about what to work on in order to learn the language. If you just know > > the language like the back of your hand, then you don?t need no > > stinkin? test. > > If the KLI didn't hand out medals and certification levels for passing > those tests, then no, he wouldn't need to take them. But it does, and > students feel a certain pressure to prove themselves, as you yourself > admit to. > > > > I didn?t ask for a special pass on any part of the test. I didn?t ask > > to be an exception because I was so special. > > > > And you shouldn?t, either. > > He's not asking for a special pass or to be an exception. He's > criticizing the content constructively. If you don't think his criticism > is valid ? that is, if you have a reason why suffix numbers /should/ be > taught, say so and have done. If not, stop trying to beat him into > submission. > > > > Just do the extra work and pass the test, or don?t do the work and > > skip the test. You?ll still be respected here as a full member even if > > you don?t get to wear the cool little pins. > > I don't see any respect coming from your post. > > -- > SuStel > http://trimboli.name > >

1 0

{SaD} {SanID} difference
by mayqel qunen'oS 26 Nov '19

26 Nov '19

Besides the info, that is written in tkd, is there any other info on the words {SaD} & {SanID} ? According to tkd, both are more or less "the same", being used with the same frequency. But is any one of them, slang ? Or is one more "formal" than the other ? bara'qa'

5 5

Klingon Word of the Day: pel'aQ
by Klingon Word of the Day 25 Nov '19

25 Nov '19

Klingon Word of the Day for Sunday, November 24, 2019 Klingon word: pel'aQ Part of speech: noun Definition: coffin Source: qep'a' 24 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

4 3

Klingon Word of the Day: qubbID
by Klingon Word of the Day 25 Nov '19

25 Nov '19

Klingon Word of the Day for Monday, November 25, 2019 Klingon word: qubbID Part of speech: noun Definition: span, run, stretch (between) Source: qep'a' 26 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

Klingon Word of the Day: mIw
by Klingon Word of the Day 25 Nov '19

25 Nov '19

Klingon Word of the Day for Saturday, November 23, 2019 Klingon word: mIw Part of speech: noun Definition: recipe, formula (procedure, process) Source: qep'a' 26 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

Klingon Word of the Day: bachHa'
by Klingon Word of the Day 22 Nov '19

22 Nov '19

Klingon Word of the Day for Friday, November 22, 2019 Klingon word: bachHa' Part of speech: verb Definition: err (slang), make a mistake (slang) Source: KGT This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1