August 2021 - tlhIngan-Hol

{'e'} of a sao and quotations
by mayqel qunen'oS 25 Aug '21

25 Aug '21

< nucholpu' jaghpu' > jIjatlhpu' HoDvaD 'e' yIjatlh tell the captain that I've said "the enemies have approached us". Grammatically, is there something wrong with this? ~ Dana'an

3 14

Klingon Word of the Day: lav
by Klingon Word of the Day 25 Aug '21

25 Aug '21

Klingon Word of the Day for Wednesday, August 25, 2021 Klingon word: lav Part of speech: verb Definition: lean, incline, slant Source: tlhIngan-Hol Mailing List - De'vID - 02 March 2019 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

Beginner's text and questions
by luis.chaparro＠web.de 25 Aug '21

25 Aug '21

mayqel qunen'oS: > I think there's {lu-} missing; it should be {'elmeH chaw'mey luje'lu'ta'bogh} Indeed. > I think there's something important to clarify here, especially since luis chaparro is a beginner: [...] And thank you for contributing with your ideas to this topic.

3 8

xifan hol
by Lieven L. Litaer 24 Aug '21

24 Aug '21

peqIm, I was going to write a page about "xifan hol" in the Klingon Language Wiki, but I then wondered if I was on the right track. So, before I spoil your opinion with mine, what do you think of when you talk about or read the term "xifan hol"? If you wish, you may add it directly to the wiki: http://klingon.wiki/En/XifanHol -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com

2 1

Klingon Word of the Day: notqa'
by Klingon Word of the Day 24 Aug '21

24 Aug '21

Klingon Word of the Day for Tuesday, August 24, 2021 Klingon word: notqa' Part of speech: noun Definition: a large, black bird Source: HQ (10:4 p4) This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

{'e'} of a sao in {law'} {puS} constructions
by mayqel qunen'oS 24 Aug '21

24 Aug '21

I think I know this, but I'll ask anyway.. Context: There's an officer who is unfair, insubordinate, uncooperative; "a piece of work" as americans say.. And as soon as the enemies surround the ship he wants to surrender too. So the captain tells him: "you're unfair, insubordinate, uncooperative.. all this I knew, but now I see that you're a coward too, and that is the worst of all" (meaning the worst of his traits). So now, suppose we wrote: {bImaybe', bItlhIv, bIyeqqangbe'taH; Hochvam vISov. 'a DaH latlh vItlhoj.. nuch SoH 'ej 'e' qab law' Hoch qab puS} The question is whether this use of {'e'} in a law'/puS construction could be considered to be correct. But I think that it isn't, because in the slots of a law'/puS construction the only thing allowed is either a noun, or a pronoun as {jIH}, {SoH}, {ghaH}, etc, because pronouns can act like nouns too. But since the {'e'} of a sao can only be a pronoun, then it can't be allowed in a law'/puS construction. Am I right? ~ D

4 3

hellenic gods - sky gods part 2
by mayqel qunen'oS 24 Aug '21

24 Aug '21

en *Hera* - Queen of the gods. *The Hesperides* - Nymphs of the evening and sunset. *Iris* - Goddess of the rainbow and divine messenger. *Men* - A lunar deity worshiped in the western interior parts of Anatolia. *Nephele* - Cloud nymph. *Nyx* - Goddess of night. *Pandia* - Daughter of Selene and Zeus. *The Pleiades* - Goddesses of the star cluster Pleiades and were associated with rain: Alcyone Sterope Celaeno Electra Maia Merope Taygete *Sabazios* - The nomadic horseman and sky father god of the Phrygians and Thracians. *Selene* - Goddess of the moon. *Uranus* - Primeval god of the heavens. *Zeus* - King of Heaven and god of the sky, clouds, thunder, and lightning. tlh *hera* - be’ ghaHbogh Qun’e’. Qunpu’ voDleH. *hesperides* - choS tlhom je *nymphs*. *iris* - be’ ghaHbogh Qun’e’. Har’ey Qun. Qunpu’ QIn qengwI’. *men* - maS Qun. *anatolia* qoD SepHommey tIng ‘evDaq Qunvam quvmoHlu’pu’. *nephele* - ‘eng *nymph*. *nyx* - be’ ghaHbogh Qun’e’. ram Qun. *pandia* *- zeus* *selene* je puqbe’. *pleiades* - be’ chaHbogh Qun’e’. *pleiades* Hov Doj Qunpu’. SIS; rarchuq wanI’vam Qunpu’vam je. pongmeychaj: *alcyone*, *sterope*, *celaeno*, *electra*, *maia*, *merope*, *taygete*. *sabazios* - lengtaHbogh Sargh DevwI’. *phrygians* *thracians* je chal-vav-Qun. *selene* - be’ ghaHbogh Qun’e’. maS Qun. *uranus* - loD ghaHbogh Qun’e’. chal’a’mey bIreS’a’-Qun. *zeus* - loD ghaHbogh Qun’e’. chal’a’ voDleH. chal ‘engmey je Qun. tuD/raw; muD Dotlhvam SeH *zeus*. ~ Dana'an

1 0

Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Objects
by DloraH 23 Aug '21

23 Aug '21

> And I'll go and explain to them exactly why we drive on the parkway > and > park on the driveway. A parkway is so called because it is lined by > trees to make it park-like. A driveway is so called because the word > came into use back in a time when ... 'ej DaHjaj vay' vIghoj. - DloraH

1 0

Objects
by Will Martin 22 Aug '21

22 Aug '21

While I’ve used the language for a lot of years, I will confess to specific bone-headedness in terms of missing some basic concepts. While there were early challenges I worked past, there’s one I’m just starting to realize I think I’ve misunderstood for decades. It’s harder to change to understand something that you’ve misunderstood than it is to begin to understand something you more simply didn’t understand. It’s like there’s a spreadsheet with a cell for the thing you want to understand. It’s easier to spot an empty cell and fill it than it is to realize that you have corrupt data in a cell that needs replacing. Okrand explains to us about null prefixes. I’m dimly beginning to suspect that there is also at least one null suffix. My vague memory of an interview with Okrand more than a decade ago, includes times when I used the word “transitive” and Okrand corrected me to say “takes an object”. This happened repeatedly because I was stupid enough to fail to recognize my stupidity. Also, in TKD, it talks about word order as “Object Verb Subject” and uses the word “Object” quite a bit, but I can’t find an instance of him using the term “Direct Object”. I think I’ve been inserting the idea of a Direct Object into a language that doesn’t distinguish Direct Objects from other kinds of Objects. In other words, Klingon doesn’t have a Direct Object or an Indirect Object. It just has Objects. Some are supplemented in syntactical information by Type 5 suffixes, and some aren’t. This would explain the “prefix trick” and the {-moH} sentences I have despised for so many years. In other words, a noun might optionally take {-vaD} and have the same meaning in a sentence whether the {-vaD} is present or not. What I’ve been taking as a specific Direct Object might instead more simply be an unspecified kind of object, and what I think of as a Direct Object is more simply an object that perhaps takes a null Type 5 suffix, or more simply, it’s an unspecified type of object that has no possible Type 5 suffix that could be applied to it in the given sentence. So, in {be’nalwI’ vIghojmoH}, {tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH}, and {be’nalwI’vaD tlhIngnan Hol vIghojmoH}, {be’nalwI’} is never a Direct Object. It’s just an object, and in the first sentence, the {-vaD} isn’t necessary and is unstated, and the verb prefix doesn’t indicate that it is the Direct Object of the verb. It simply agrees with its status as an Object, not explicitly identified by a Type 5 suffix. In the last sentence, the {-vaD} is present for clarity’s sake. In other words, {-vaD} is akin to a plural suffix. If you already know the noun is plural, you don’t need a plural suffix. If you know that a noun is a beneficiary, you don’t need {-vaD}. It’s not wrong to explicitly use it, but it’s just not essential. It’s a language, not a computer program. Just because you CAN use a Type 5 suffix doesn’t mean you have to. Similarly, that also explains why certain verbs don’t require {-Daq} for nouns that obviously have a locative function. Meanwhile, it makes sense that over time, verbs that commonly have locative-nouns as objects might more formally decide when to use the {-Daq} and when to not use the {-Daq} in order to more give more nuance into the nature of the use of the locative with that verb, so you can differentiate whether you are going to a river (destination) or going in a river (route, or vehicle), etc. This kind of nuance doesn’t work for other verbs because location isn’t a core part of the meaning of most verbs. Of course this idea of more generic Objects also leaves open the following possibilities for which we have no canon, but until such canon appears, this is only unverified conjecture: tlhIngan Hol’e’ be’nalwI’ vIghojmoH. tlhIngan Hol’e’ be’nalwI’vaD jIghojmoH. In that last example, the prefix indicates no object because the Type 5 suffixes already identify nouns that are objects, so there’s no need to redundantly point to them with the prefix. Also, the “prefix trick” isn’t really even a trick. If I’d understood the optional nature of Type 5 noun suffixes, then the following would already make sense: chab qanob. The prefix indicates one object, {SoH}, and positionally, there’s another object {chab}. Context tells you that {SoH} is the beneficiary, so the {-vaD} is wholly unnecessary, and {chab} doesn’t need a Type 5 Suffix to explain its grammatical relationship to the verb. I’m guessing that SuStel has been trying to explain this to me for years, but I couldn’t begin to understand that which I had misunderstood because it was an unknown unknown, as a former member of the military industrial congressional complex once put it. Or perhaps more likely, he’s about to explain how I have once again gotten it wrong, and someone will be entertained by the ensuing thread. In any case, it gives one distraction from The State Of The World at the moment, and anything that can do that is worthwhile. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)

2 3

Beginner's text and questions
by luis.chaparro＠web.de 22 Aug '21

22 Aug '21

DoyIchlanDaq Qatqu' paq wab tamey. noyqu' lut mIr *ghelmeH wej ngutlh* (DoyIchlan Hol: *Die drei Fragezeichen*, DIvI' Hol: *The Three Investigators*). poymar HeS je panbogh wej QulwI' Qup'e' bop. lutvam tIvqu' HojnIypu' nenwI'pu' je. DIS 1964 'amerI'qa' SepjIjQa'Daq paq wa'DIch ghItlhlu'pu'. DIS 1990 lut mIr baqlu'pu', Qap 'e' mevmo'. 'ach DoyIchlanDaq QaptaH, vaj DoyIchlan Hol paqmey lughItlhchoHlu'pu' 'ej DaHjaj lughItlhlu'taH. DoyIchlanDaq neH paq wab ta tu'lu'. DIS 1979 paq wab ta wa'DIch chenmoHlu'pu', wa' wen paq wab ta cha'vatlh wa'maH wa'DIch. qonchoHpu'DI', puq chaH jatlhwI''e', DaHjaj qontaH. DoyIchlanDaq noyqu', muchpa'mey tInDaq muchmeychaj bej SaD law'. qo'Daq paq wab tavam chep law' Hoch chep puS. As usual, I would appreciate any help / correction in order to improve my Klingon. I also have three questions: 1. With *paq wab ta*, *ghelmeH ngutlh* and *QulwI'* I've tried to render the meanings *audiobook*, *question mark* and *investigator/detective* respectively. Maybe there are better options? (Actually, the series is an *audio drama*, rather than an *audiobook*, I don't know how that distinction could be rendered in Klingon). 2. Is the position of the number *wej* in *ghelmeH wej ngutlh* right? Or should it go before the purpose clause, assuming *ghelmeH ngutlh* is a unit? 3. Is it possible in Klingon to elide shared elements like in this sentence: *DIS 1979 paq wab ta wa'DIch chenmoHlu'pu', wa' wen paq wab ta cha'vatlh wa'maH wa'DIch.* Thank you!

3 3