June 2019 - tlhIngan-Hol

veQ 'oH battlestar galactica'e'
by mayqel qunen'oS 24 Jun '19

24 Jun '19

'op ben, jIHvaD jatlh 'op juppu'qoq: ..battlestar galactica yIbej, pov !.. 'op Hu', lut mIrvam vIbejchoH, 'ej DaH DIS wa' lutmey vIbejpu'.. 'a, veQ lut mIrvam ! veQna' !!! 'ej Do'Ha', latlh wej DIS lutmey vIbejnIS.. ~ m. qunen'oS

2 4

Klingon Word of the Day: wIch
by Klingon Word of the Day 24 Jun '19

24 Jun '19

Klingon Word of the Day for Monday, June 24, 2019 Klingon word: wIch Part of speech: noun Definition: myth Source: TKD This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

And now..
by mayqel qunen'oS 24 Jun '19

24 Jun '19

'ej DaH, 'unwatDajDaq vatlhpu' vIghro' tIQ, 'ej QongchoHpu'mo', najtaHvIS, chaq vIghro' qeylIS ghom.. vaj, QongDaqmajDaq mavatlhnIS je.. chaq, manajtaHvIS, qeylIS wIghom.. chaq, manajtaHvIS ghe''or Qun wIghom.. 'ej chaq not mavemqa'.. ~ m. qunen'oS

3 3

Klingon Word of the Day: So'
by Klingon Word of the Day 24 Jun '19

24 Jun '19

Klingon Word of the Day for Saturday, June 22, 2019 Klingon word: So' Part of speech: verb Definition: hide, cloak Source: TKD This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

Klingon Word of the Day: non
by Klingon Word of the Day 24 Jun '19

24 Jun '19

Klingon Word of the Day for Sunday, June 23, 2019 Klingon word: non Part of speech: verb Definition: be rotten Source: TKD This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

does {ve'} work like {jaH} ?
by mayqel qunen'oS 23 Jun '19

23 Jun '19

does {ve'} work like {jaH} ? ~ m. qunen'oS

2 1

Do'olHom
by mayqel qunen'oS 23 Jun '19

23 Jun '19

I wonder, whether {Do'olHom} would/could be understood as "dust". ~ m. qunen'oS

2 2

What does {Du' naH} mean exactly ?
by mayqel qunen'oS 23 Jun '19

23 Jun '19

I want to say "the produce which needs to be harvested is much". Read: law' Du' naH'e' yobnISbogh vumwI'pu' or law' Du' naH'e' luyobnISbogh vumwI'pu' Is the {Du' naH} to be understood as "the produce" i.e. singular, or is it to be understood as "fruit of the farm", so that {law' Du' naH} actually means "the fruits of the farm are many" ? Someone could wonder, how in case it means "the produce" (singular), it could be used as a subject for {law'}, but we have the Ca'Non {law' 'ul} (or is it {'ul law'} ?), although I don't remember where it's from. But the point here, isn't if I should use {law'} or {vItlh}. The point is what's happening with the {Du' naH}. Although, if it's "produce" I'd choose {vItlh}, and if it's "farm fruit" I'd go with {law'}. ~ m. qunen'oS

8 18

unless they're stupid
by mayqel qunen'oS 23 Jun '19

23 Jun '19

There is a klingon, a table, and a chair. And I say to the klingon {yIba'}. Doesn't it stand to reason, that the klingon will understand "sit at the chair" ? Unless he's a moron, or has some table fetish, he *will* understand, "sit at the chair". Now, suppose I say {vIghro' motlh yISuqQo'; vIghro' tIQ yISuq. qaq}. Isn't the meaning obvious, as to *what* exactly is preferable ? How could someone argue that I should specify further, on what exactly is preferable, e.g. by saying {vIghro' motlh yISuqQo'; vIghro' tIQ yISuq. qaq wIvvam} ? If the listener is brain damaged, needing this further clarification, then surely, being obviously stupid, he could still wonder: "what is this choice which is preferable ? obtaining the ancient cat, or some other option which had come up in the discussion, five minutes or five centuries ago ?" Perhaps, klingons are indeed stupid, brain damaged, mentally incompetent individuals. But since humans aren't, I refuse to accept arguments, that one *should* specify further in sentences as the one mentioned. ~ m. qunen'oS

2 1

Decomposed plural persons
by Daniel Dadap 22 Jun '19

22 Jun '19

Do we have any evidence in canon to support the use of verb prefixes referring to a plural subject or object, with the persons composing the plural subject or object being explicitly stated and only matching the person indicated by the verb prefix when considered as a group, but not individually? For example: meq Daj wIrIchtaH be'nalwI' jIH je. SughoH'a' SoH jIllI' je? loDnI'lI' jIH je ghomuv! I’ve always taken it for granted that one could say things like the above, but I realized recently that I wasn’t sure if I’d ever actually seen it done. If there isn’t any evidence to support breaking out the members of a plural person indicated by a verb prefix the way it’s done in the above examples, does anybody have any suggestions on how to do it? The usual answer would seem to be “split it into multiple sentences”, but I’m having trouble figuring out how to do that in a grammatically sound way without necessarily adding more context to fill in a missing verb slot, e.g.: muvuQ meq Daj. be'nalwI' vuQ je. wIrIchtaH. jIllI' DaQeHmoHlaw'pu'. SughoH'a'? qaloS. DuloS je loDnI'lI'. ghomuv! I suppose that something like {meq Daj wIrIchtaH. be'nalwI' jIH je maH.} might also be possible, but it really doesn’t sit right with me.

2 4