June 2020 - tlhIngan-Hol

New words from Hamletmachine
by Lieven L. Litaer 28 Dec '23

28 Dec '23

For the creation of the play {mu' mu' mu'} by the Dutch theatre company URLAND that premiered on 4th of March 2020, I was asked to translate a German play into Klingon, which was partially used in their play. The play "Die Hamletmaschine" by German author Heiner Müller was written in 1977, is internationally known and has been translated into several languages. During translation work, I got help from Marc Okrand who could discuss some useful information with Maltz. Due to some copyright situations, I cannot publish the translation right now, but I do not want to keep those words hidden until publication until then, so here we go. For a clearer and more "colorful" overview, see the page at the Klingon Language wiki: http://klingon.wiki/En/Hamletmachine Body parts: == Okrand quote == {nev'ob} refers to both the "thigh" and the "upper arm" (above the elbow). Similarly, {reStav} refers to both the "shin" and the "forearm." If it's necessary to make a distinction, precede these words with {'uS} or {DeS}. {cha'neH}, when used alone, means "forearm." But when preceded by {'uS}, it means "lower part of the leg." You could also say {DeS cha'neH} for "forearm," but this would probably be used only in a context where you were talking about both the forearm and the lower leg and wanted to clarify which was which. {reStav} is "shin," meaning the front of the lower leg. (I assume "Schienbein" is "shin bone." {reStav} is more than just the bone. The only way Maltz was aware of for referring to the bone is {reStav Hom}.) {Do'ghI'} is "calf," meaning the back of the lower leg ("Wade," presumably). == Okrand quote end == Clarifying "hang": == Okrand quote == {HuS} takes an object. If your shoes are hanging on a wall it's because somebody hung them there. {HuS} is not used to mean "lynch" or "execute by hanging." That's a different word: {jIb}. (Maltz thought maybe an early form of torture or execution was hanging people by their hair, but he wasn't totally sure about this and may have just been reacting to the homophony.) And there's another word: {tlhep} "be suspended, be dangling." Use {HuS} if, for example, you hang your coat on a hook on the wall or hang sheets on a clothesline to dry. But if, say, you see a spider dangling at the bottom of one of those silk threads that spiders extrude, use {tlhep}. Or if you see a pair of shoes tied together by the laces and, for whatever reason, they're hanging by the tied-together laces from an overhead power wire, use {tlhep}. == Okrand quote end == Okrand agreed that {jIb'egh} is "suicide by hanging". Next, there was a question about a "concubine": == Okrand quote == Maltz thought the best word for this might be {lIwnal}, though maybe not: the cultural connotations are a bit different since, in Klingon culture, everything associated with a {lIwnal} lacks honor, and this is not necessarily the case for a (Terran) king's concubines or courtesans. Note that only married people could have a partner who could be considered a {lIwnal}. Also, {lIwnal} could be male or female, so if it's necessary to distinguish, say {loD lIwnal} or {be' lIwnal}. == Okrand quote end == More words: {ghenlan} - Greenland (country) {qaw'} - flip over {qaw'moH} - flip over (i.e. "make something flip over") {rIv} - split {vIrgh} - rip (up), slash, tear (up), gash {'o'nI'} - foam, froth Not new words, but combined translations: {DeSwar bIr} - refrigerator {jorchan velqa'} - stage decoration {much jech} - costume {much yaH} - stage {qab jech} - mask Transliterations: {qo'qa' qo'la'} - Coca Cola {lIyenIn} - Lenin {maw} - Mao The question for a "stage" was answered with a general statement: == Okrand quote == Any place specifically designated for the performance of a specific task (or tasks) is a {yaH}. A stage is the {yaH} for the performance of plays or, perhaps, music. A football field is the {yaH} for a football game. A laboratory is a scientist's {yaH}. And, of course, on a ship, a {yaH} is a duty station. If context isn't enough to clarify what sort of {yaH} it is, you can say things like {much yaH}, {QoQ yaH}, {tamlerQeD yaH}, etc. == Okrand quote end == There's an idiom for "kill time": {'ebmey jonHa'} Talking about a "virgin", Okrand suggested saying it literally what a virgin is: {pagh ngaghpu'bogh be'} or {not vay' ngaghpu'bogh be'} Doing so, he answered the question if {ngagh} can be used with people. And in case anyone wondered, {jach} is a good verb to describe what a {jajlo' Qa'} does. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://klingon.wiki/En/Hamletmachine

8 29

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

code of conduct
by De'vID 01 Jul '20

01 Jul '20

tlhIngan Hol bolo'taHvIS chay' qechvam bomugh? tlhIngan Hol yejHaD DaqmeyDaq wa' poQlu'law'. mujlaw' {ngoq}. loQ lughbe'law' je {chut}. chaq mIt {ghob}, {qangtlhIn}, {batlh} joq. -- De'vID

4 5

they-them prefix with -moH -'egh with -moH and DoHmoH
by mayqel qunen'oS 01 Jul '20

01 Jul '20

Suppose the klingons drive back the romulans from kronos: tlhInganpu'vaD Qo'noS luDoHmoH romuluSnganpu'. Now, lets forget this example, and consider the following one: There's a starship closing in on another ship, and that second starship uses a repellent beam to drive the first ship back. Now, the crew of the ship which has been driven back wants to say "they drove us back from them". Suppose we write: maHvaD DoHmoHta'. The problem here will be, that although there's the null prefix for they-them, this prefix seemingly/apparently works only when the two "they" and "them" are two different groups. In the example above, since the subject and object of DoHmoH are the same, we can't apply the null prefix in question. Perhaps it would be tempting to write: maHvaD DoH'eghmoHta' they caused themselves to back away from us Since with the {-'egh} the object acts on itself, thus overcoming the they-them prefix restriction. But again, there's something seemingly wrong with this sentence too, which I can't identify. So, if I'm correct, the only way we can express the intended meaning is by writing: maHvaD Dujchaj luDoHmoHta'. But am I right, or could the {maHvaD DoH'eghmoHta'} be correct too ? Or could we use the they-them null prefix for cases where the two "they" (subject and object) are in fact the same group ? ~ Qa'yIn

4 4

Klingon Word of the Day: turwI'
by Klingon Word of the Day 30 Jun '20

30 Jun '20

Klingon Word of the Day for Tuesday, June 30, 2020 Klingon word: turwI' Part of speech: noun Definition: server (computer) Source: qep'a' 25 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

1 0

Sound of o
by SuStel 29 Jun '20

29 Jun '20

According to the Klingon Wiki, TKD describes the letter*o*as in "go or mosaic". This is confusing, because English speakers would do that with a diphthong, rhyming "go" with "glow" and saying "mosaic" like "mow-saic". This is not what Okrand intended. He just wanted to make clear that it's not o like in "cop" or "pot". The sound still is a clear "o" without a following u sound. The word*qepHom <http://klingon.wiki/bin/view/En/QepHom>*should NOT rhyme with "home". ORLY? Where does this revelation come from? TKD says that *o* sounds exactly the same as *ow* — meaning it's a diphthong that sounds exactly the same as American English /go./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

7 25

sao and to be sentences
by mayqel qunen'oS 29 Jun '20

29 Jun '20

Suppose we write: romuluS wo' wIQaw'chu' 'e' 'oHbe' ngoQmaj'e' our goal isn't to annihilate the romulan empire Would there be a problem with a construction as the above ? On one hand, I can't be able to see anything grammatically wrong with it, on the other hand though, it seems rather strange seeing before the {'oHbe'} the {'e'}. One would expect for this slot to be able to accept only nouns. ~ Qa'yIn

4 3