January 2020 - tlhIngan-Hol

pseudo-Klingon words from the paq'batlh
by De'vID 27 May '22

27 May '22

What do people think about the following Klingon "words" from paq'batlh? They don't appear in the main (Klingon-language) text, but are used in otherwise English sentences in the introduction or footnotes. xxii. {Huy'reH} "aria style" xxii, 62, 87. {cha'ang} "chorus style" xvii, xxii, xxxv. {Qich'lut} "narrator style" xix. {paq'jachchu} "Book of the Perfect Scream" {Huy'reH} and {cha'ang}, at least, seem to follow proper modern {tlhIngan Hol} phonology. {Qich'lut} has a lower-cased "i" and an out-of-place {qaghwI'}. {paq'jachchu} has that apostrophe after {paq} and a missing {qaghwI'} at the end (if the {jachchu} part is indeed the verb {jachchu'}, as the English translation seems to indicate). On p.xxx, it is explicitly stated that the name {paq'batlh} is in {no' Hol} and that the apostrophe may be a clue to some missing grammatical element. Of course, the book also has sections named {paq'yav}, {paq'raD}, and {paq'QIH}. So {paq'jachchu} is probably just spelled weirdly for the same reason. Should {Huy'reH} and {cha'ang} be accepted as canon Klingon words as-is? In other words, would you expect them in a new words list? (In particular, I am asking if they should be listed in {boQwI'}.) The word {Qich'lut} is spelled that way all three times it appears in the book. I notice that in previous discussions on this mailing list, 'IQqu' and Voragh have both spelled it as {QIch lut} (capital-I, no apostrophe, space between the two words). Should {QIch lut} be accepted as the "modern" spelling for the purpose of look-up in word lists? -- De'vID

12 50

paq'batlh errata?
by De'vID 27 Aug '20

27 Aug '20

Did anyone ever put together a list of errata for the {paq'batlh}? I'm about to send off my own list to the publisher. But if anyone else has compiled a list, please let me know in case I missed something. -- De'vID

4 8

pluralizing groups of beings capable of language
by mayqel qunen'oS 17 Aug '20

17 Aug '20

Just to make certain.. The way I understand it is, that when we pluralize a group of beings capable of language, then we use {-mey}. For example, we'll say {qorDu'mey} for "families", and not {qorDu'pu'}. Right ? ~ mayqel qunen'oS

5 5

Pronouns for irregular plurals
by Hugh Son puqloD 16 Aug '20

16 Aug '20

As I understand it, irregular plurals like {cha}, {ngop}, {negh}, and {no'} are treated as grammatically singular. But does that extend to pronouns? The following sentences don’t bother me that much: {ngop wISay'moH} {Dulegh'a' negh?} {no' luqaw} {cha yIghuS!} But these seem downright weird: {nuqDaq 'oH ngop'e'?} {'Iv ghaH no'ra''e'?} {cha 'oH'a'?} {negh ghaHlaw'.} Do we have canonical evidence of pronouns used to stand in for irregular plural nouns?

3 4

Klingon Word of the Day: teS
by Klingon Word of the Day 11 Feb '20

11 Feb '20

Klingon Word of the Day for Sunday, January 26, 2020 Klingon word: teS Part of speech: noun Definition: ear (hearing organ, inside head) Source: KGT This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

can I say {jaghpu' chaH chaH'e'} ?
by mayqel qunen'oS 04 Feb '20

04 Feb '20

This isn't something I'd actually do, but - as always - I'm trying to understand how things work. So.. We know we can say: jaghpu' chaH romuluSnganpu''e' enemies are romulans (lets flush down the toilet the "as for.." meaning, since its irrelevant to the question). Would it be grammatically wrong to say the following ? jaghpu' chaH chaH'e' enemies are they I know we could say {jaghpu' chaH}, but my problem is, whether it would be grammatically wrong to say too the {jaghpu' chaH chaH'e'}. ~ mayqel qunen'oS

6 15

rIntaH and be-verbs
by mayqel qunen'oS 03 Feb '20

03 Feb '20

The way I understand {rIntaH}, it is to be used with action verbs e.g. kill, attack, try, hunt, etc. And even then, it is *only* to be used, when the action is intentional. Meaning, that we *can* say {SuvwI' luHoH rIntaH jaghpu'}, but we *cannot* say {loD luHoH rIntaH pumpu'bogh naghmey} "the rocks which fell killed the man". Of course, I may be wrong, and if I am, then please *do* correct me.. However, recently I begun to wonder, whether one could use {rIntaH} with be-verbs. For example, could we say something like the following ? taQ rIntaH DevwI' the leader is strange ~ mayqel qunen'oS

6 26

Klingon Word of the Day: QoghIj
by Klingon Word of the Day 31 Jan '20

31 Jan '20

Klingon Word of the Day for Friday, January 31, 2020 Klingon word: QoghIj Part of speech: noun Definition: brain (organ) Source: KGT (225 KE, 236 EK) This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

Klingon Word of the Day: qutluch
by Klingon Word of the Day 30 Jan '20

30 Jan '20

Klingon Word of the Day for Thursday, January 30, 2020 Klingon word: qutluch Part of speech: noun Definition: hand weapon (type of) Source: ADD This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

qep'a' cha'maH SochDIch (27th Klingon Language Institute conference)
by Alan Anderson 29 Jan '20

29 Jan '20

To those of you who already saw this in a Facebook post or direct email, I apologize for the extra inbox clutter. To those of you who haven't seen this: This year's qep'a' is still half a year away, but that means you can take advantage of a significant discount for early registration. The conference membership cost will remain at $45 only for the next couple of days, through the end of January, increasing to $50 on February 1. The sooner you register, the lower the price you will have to pay. https://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-sochdich/ Follow the links to the online registration and hotel reservation pages. I hope to see you this year! -- Alan Anderson Assistant Director/Event Liaison Klingon Language Institute

1 0