July 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

'op after the noun
by mayqel qunen'oS 04 Apr '22

04 Apr '22

The {'op} is defined as "some, an unknown or unspecified quantity", and in the Ca'Non example of Skybox 7 it is used as {'op SuvwI'} i.e in front of a countable noun which doesn't have the plural suffix. The relevant part of that sentence is: {DujvamDaq 'op SuvwI' tu'lu'bogh po' law' tlhIngan yo' SuvwI' law' po' puS} Suppose we say {'op na'ran Soppu' qeSHoS}. Then this could mean either "the fox ate some/an unspecified quantity of an orange", or "the fox ate some/an unspecified quantity of oranges". Perhaps one could argue that based on the Ca'Non example of the Skybox 7, "the 'op before a singular noun is to be interpreted as referring to a plural number of that noun". But I don't know if one could argue that, since in this Ca'Non example, interpreting the {SuvwI'} as being singular is impossible. Because, if interpreting the {SuvwI'} as being singular was possible, then that would mean that "the klingon vessel pagh has some/an unspecified quantity of a warrior", i.e. on the pagh happen to serve some of the most skilled legs/arms/DaynguHDu'/whatever of a warrior in the klingon fleet. Of course in star trek everything is possible, on the other hand though, I think that one could come to the following conclusion with regards to the {'op}: Placing the {'op} before a countable noun which has no plural suffix, could mean either "some, an unknown or unspecified quantity of that noun (singular)" or "some, an unknown or unspecified quantity of a number of that noun". While placing the {'op} before an uncountable noun can only mean ""some/an unspecified quantity of that noun (singular)". Of course, I don't know for sure if this conclusion would be correct.. But now let's get back to the fox.. If I write {'op na'ranmey Soppu' qeSHoS}, then this obviously means ""the fox ate some/an unspecified quantity of oranges". But my problem is that this is ambiguous in the following way: Did the fox walk in the house, find an unspecified quantity of oranges and ate them all ? Or did the fox walk into the house, found 40 oranges and ate some of them ? And if the fox indeed ate only some of the oranges, then why not write {na'ranmey 'op Soppu' qeSHoS} ? After all, we *can* write {pItSa' HochHom Soppu' vIghro' tIQ} for "the ancient cat ate almost all of the pizza". ~ Qa'yIn

3 5

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

verb-noun combinations
by Lieven L. Litaer 01 Aug '20

01 Aug '20

This idea came from a discussion in the Facebook Learn Klingon group, and I find it quite interesting to compile such a list. Are you aware of any Klingon noun+verb combinations which look anusual from an English point of view? Very often, Okrand explains Klingon usage by saying like "This idea is expressed by using the verb xy". For instance, at qep'a' 27, we just heard that to say "nostalgize", you actually say "experience nostalgy" or {ngonDer SIQ}. We learned the slang expression {mInDu' yIv} for blink the eyes. Do you remember any other where you know that noun X is always used with the verb Y, but very different from English usage? -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/En/Verb

2 1

is nIyma' an 'oH or a ghaH
by mayqel qunen'oS 31 Jul '20

31 Jul '20

In the following link: https://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2008/November/msg00003.html 'oqranD describes the word {nIyma'} and its' meaning. For ease of reference, I copy -paste here the relevant info: -------------- Hi, Lieven. Good to hear from you! I was lucky enough to have a conversation with Maltz the other day and I told him about your email about {nIyma'}. Maltz was very surprised. He said, "Where did they learn that word?" It turns out, {nIyma'} is the Klingon word for "phantom" or "apparition" -- something that seems to appear, but isn't really there. It's not the same as "ghost," which is the spirit of a dead person (and may or may not look like that person, or may not be visible at all), and it's not the same as "spirit" (or {qa'}), which is sort of a life force within a person (that escapes when a person dies and may exist somewhere somehow). He said using {qa'} for "ghost" was OK, but I got the impression there may be another word as well (though he didn't offer one). He said that although the word doesn't really mean "invited guest that doesn't show up," it made a lot of sense to him to use {nIyma'} to refer to such a person. He also said that Nima should feel honored that his name is so similar to a Klingon word. -------------- Based on the above, is nIyma' an 'oH or a ghaH ? I just can't decide which of the two pronouns would be appropriate. ~ Qa'yIn

2 3

Klingon Word of the Day: jentu'
by Klingon Word of the Day 31 Jul '20

31 Jul '20

Klingon Word of the Day for Friday, July 31, 2020 Klingon word: jentu' Part of speech: noun Definition: flightless aquatic bird, similar to a penguin Source: Pat Duff on twitter, August 2013 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

1 0

can lo'laH take -laH ?
by mayqel qunen'oS 30 Jul '20

30 Jul '20

There's the be-verb {lo'laH} defined as "be valuable". On "Newsgroup: Microsoft Network expert forum Date: Sunday, November 30, 1997 11:23 pm", as found in: http://klingon.wiki/En/Msn_1997-11-30, 'oqranD writes: *** Quote starts *** On the other hand, you're right about lo'laH be valuable. It is a simple verb in its own right (though it's an unusual two-syllable one), not the verb lo' use plus Type 5 suffix -laH can. It is likely that there is some sort of historical connection to the verb + suffix form, but, if so, it is just that – historical. *** Quote ends *** In this quote, {lo'laH} is being described as "not the verb lo' use plus Type 5 suffix -laH can", but a few words later we read "It is likely that there is some sort of historical connection to the verb + suffix form, but, if so, it is just that – historical." What I'm wondering is this: Does this kind of historical connection mean that we can't use the suffix -laH on the {lo'laH} ? If we wrote {lo'laHchoHlaH Dujvam} for "this ship is able to become valuable", would it be right or wrong ? ~ Qa'yIn

5 7