May 2022 - tlhIngan-Hol - lists.kli.org

{mej} with and without {-vo'}
by De'vID 28 May '22

28 May '22

In the Saarbrücken qepHom'a' 2019 booklet, Dr. Okrand answered this question about {mej}: Lieven: What is the difference between {mej} "leave" and {tlheD} "depart"? MO: They certainly overlap, but, generally speaking, {tlheD} implies setting out on a journey, having a goal or destination in mind, while {mej} refers simply to leaving one's current location. In both cases, the object is the place you're departing/leaving from. (end of reply) While revising the paq'batlh, in discussing how {mej} is used with Dr. Okrand (the context is p. 163 line 4 in the 1st edition, which said {chalqachlIjvo' bImej...} and which should be {... Damej...}), I brought up the object of {mej}, gave him the existing example of {bIghHa' DamejDI' pagh QaS yInob} "Get out of jail free" (or literally, "when you leave jail, give zero troops") from Klingon Monopoly, and asked whether {-vo'} is necessary on {chalqachlIj[vo'] Damej...}. Here's what he wrote back: MO: >>> Good catch. Both ways are okay, but the {-vo’} is not needed here. {mej} without {-vo’} implies you’re no longer in a place where you’ve been. (You were in jail, but now you’re not.) {mej} with {-vo’} is used when the place you’re leaving from (the place with the {-vo’}) is a starting point. You intend to journey from that point to some other point. (“The hikers left from the trailhead” suggests they began their hike on the trail. If you said “the hikers left the trailhead” — no {-vo’} — they may or may not have started hiking on the trail. Maybe they just got hungry and went home.) In addition to the {chalqachlIjvo’} example you cite, the paq’batlh has examples of {mej} with and without a preceding {-vo’}: (a) {lojmItmeyvo’ Damejta’} “you left from the gates” (p. 193, line 11). Kahless didn’t really spend any time at the gates — he went right through/past them and made it into Gre’thor without being harmed (well, he had to trick Fek’lhr, so it’s not like he did nothing). So Kotar is saying that Kahless got into Gre’thor from Gre’thor’s starting point so to speak (the gates), not that he escaped from the gates or something like that. So {-vo’} makes sense here. (b) {ghe’tor Da’elmo’ ’ej Damejmo’} “because you entered and left Gre’thor} (p. 195, line 26) Here there’s no place noun immediately preceding {Damejmo’}, but if there were (and there certainly could be), it would be {ghe’tor}, not {ghe’torvo’}. Kahless was in Gre’thor for a bit and then he wasn’t anymore — he left. So no {-vo’} is needed. The “to {-vo’} or not to {-vo’}” distinction isn’t as clear-cut as I may have made it sound. It’s subtle. You can be in a place for a while and then leave it and start your journey from that point. In many (most?) situations, you could use it or not and still be fine. But as a rule of thumb: If the focus is on not being somewhere anymore, no need for {-vo’}; if the focus is on starting from a certain place towards a certain path or goal, {-vo’} makes that clear. (end of message) So, to summarise: {tlheD} - implies a goal or destination {mej} without {-vo'} - just leaving a place {mej} with {-vo'} - the place marked with {-vo'} is a starting point -- De'vID

7 14

{petaQ} normally takes {-pu'}, using {-mey} adds a further layer of insult
by De'vID 27 May '22

27 May '22

(p. 143, lines 4-6) {nItlhejbogh petaQmey / tInuD chaHvaD / nIb yan wIjwI' jan je} De'vID: TKD says that {-mey} on beings capable of language conveys the idea of "all over the place", but here it says {nItlhejbogh petaQmey} "p'takhs at your side", and if they're at Kahless' side, they are not scattered about. is {-mey} the usual suffix for {petaQ} (because {petaQ} are considered incapable of language)? Or is the {-mey} an additional layer of insult (similar to using {-wIj} instead of {-wI'}, as described in TKD)? Or is this an error? MO: >>> {-mey} is used here in the insulting sense. De'vID: Why does it have an insulting sense here? MO: >>> Short answer: Not only is Molor insulting Kahless’s troops by referring to them as p’takhs, he’s further insulting them by saying they’re not capable of language. (And maybe he’s implying that they’re disorganized — scattered about — as well.) (end of message) In a related note, someone (not Dr. Okrand) had added a footnote on p.70 of the 1st edition of the paq'batlh where they speculated that the word was derived from {taQ} "be weird". The 2nd edition will change this footnote to read: "P'takh ({petaQ}) is an insulting Klingon epithet. Its resemblance to the verb {taQ}, meaning "be weird", preceded by the you (plural) imperative prefix ({pe-}) is coincidental, and the claim that they are related is not supported by research." -- De'vID

2 1

contents of boxes vs. contents of books
by De'vID 27 May '22

27 May '22

While revising the paq'batlh, Dr. Okrand wanted to change the translation used for "Contents" (as in the "Table of Contents" of a book). MO: Currently, on p. 201, it's {ngaS} "contains." But I think a simple {'ay'mey} "sections" (or even {paq 'ay'mey}) may be better. What do you think? De'vID: As precedent, the heading "contents" in Klingon Monopoly used {ngaS 'aplo'}. (It was actually printed with a typo and says {naS 'aplo'} (!), but I think everyone knows what was meant.) > CONTENTS: Game board, 6 Collectible tokens, 28 Title Deed cards, 16 COMBAT cards, 16 HONOR cards, 2 dice, 32 Outposts, 12 Capitals, 1 Pack of Klingon Forces, Rules, Chancellor's Cane Replica. > n[g]aS aplo: Quj 'echlet, polmeH jav QujwI' lIwmey, cha'maH chorgh yer ghajwI' chaw' 'echletHommey, wa'maH jav quv 'echletHommey, wa'maH jav vIq 'echletHommey, cha' mI' naghmey wejmaH cha' raQmey, wa'maH cha' monmey, wa' tlhIngan QaS vey, paqHom, Qang naQ velqa'. So perhaps for a book one could say {ngaS paq} or {'ay'mey ngaS paq}. I think {paq 'ay'mey} would also work, if you wanted to use a noun for the heading (though there's plenty of examples of verb/sentence headings). MO: I think {paq ’ay’mey}. The Monopoly phrase was describing/listing things that are in the box, a different sort of “contents.” (end of message) -- De'vID

2 1

{Hoch} before and after a noun
by De'vID 27 May '22

27 May '22

(p. 157, line 14) {Qapla'meywIj Hoch vIta'ta' 'e' DaHar'a'} The discussion is about the placement of the {Hoch} in this sentence, i.e., whether it should've gone before {Qapla'meywIj}, and how {Hoch} had been used previously. In the paq'batlh, {Hoch} preceding both singular and explicitly plural nouns appear in a number of places. There's also {muptaHvIS tay''eghmoH QeHDaj Hoch} "All his rage focussed in one blow" on p. 159, line 9. These are already part of the context of the discussion, so they're not mentioned below. De'vID: According to what you've told us, {Hoch X} means "each X, taken individually" when X is not explicitly plural, and "all X's, taken collectively" when X is explicitly plural. [article from HolQeD 5:2] On the other hand, {X Hoch} means "all of X", as in {nIn Hoch natlhlu'pu'} "All the fuel has been consumed" from KGT p.155. So the question here is whether what's intended is "all my successes, taken collectively" or "all of my successes". And if it's the latter, what's the grammar in terms of whether X is explicitly plural, or a mass noun (like {nIn}). MO: >>> The observation about {Hoch} is correct. [Clarification by De'vID: This refers to the observation earlier that it should've been {Hoch Qapla'meywIj}.] But my thinking now is that it doesn’t matter here because I don’t think we need the {Hoch} (or the {-wIj}, for that matter) at all. [snip: a discussion followed about various possibilities for revising the sentence, which isn't relevant to this post because the revised sentence ended up not having {Hoch} in it at all. ] (end of quoted message) To summarise, these are all correct: {Hoch tlhInganpu'} "all Klingons" (taken collectively) {Hoch tlhIngan} "each Klingon, every Klingon" (considered individually) {nIn Hoch} "all of the fuel" / {QeHDaj Hoch} "all of his anger" {Hoch nIn} and {Hoch QeHDaj} would be wrong, because you can't have "each fuel, every fuel" (assuming {nIn} is uncountable) or "each of his angers, every of his angers" or something like that. There's also the example of {tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH wej HochHom} "most of the 23rd century" (from SkyBox 15), which suggests {tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH wej Hoch} for "all of the 23rd century". {Hoch tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH wej} would mean "each/every 23rd century" (which doesn't make sense, unless you were writing a multiversal time-travel story or something). Dr. Okrand left unanswered the question of what it means when {Hoch} follows a noun which is countable, whether it's singular or explicitly plural, like {tlhIngan Hoch} or {tlhInganpu' Hoch}. The removal of {Qapla'meywIj Hoch} (which I believe was our only example of this construction) may be suggestive. -- De'vID

1 0

Klingon Word of the Day: mInyoD
by Klingon Word of the Day 27 May '22

27 May '22

Klingon Word of the Day for Friday, May 27, 2022 Klingon word: mInyoD Part of speech: noun Definition: eyelid Source: qep'a' 25 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

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

comparison construction with type-6 suffixes
by De'vID 27 May '22

27 May '22

(p. 127, line 18) {SoH rallaw' law' Hoch rallaw' puS} De'vID: This sentence seems to introduce new grammar, so I just wanted to make sure it was correct. Is this sentence a demonstration that, in a comparison construction, the verb of quality can take type-6 suffixes? (Previously, we were told that the verbs {law'} and {puS} could take the suffix {-be'}, but I didn't find any other instances of verb suffixes in such constructions.) MO: [snip: a discussion of proposed revisions that didn't make the final cut. I'm not going to quote it because Dr. Okrand was sounding out rough ideas and I don't want it taken out of context. The final version that he selected and approved is below.] De'vID: Can type-6 suffixes be added to the {law'}/{puS}? Would *{SoH ral law'law' Hoch ral puSlaw'} be meaningful or just ungrammatical? MO: Yes. In fact, {SoH ral law’law’ Hoch ral puSlaw’} is preferable to what’s in there now. (end of message) -- De'vID

1 0

{qempa'QeH} is a fossilised form
by De'vID 27 May '22

27 May '22

p. 145: {nItlhej qempa'QeH} → what is plural of qempa'QeH? De'vID: This isn't an error, but just something I wanted to know out of curiosity. As I understand it, the plural of {qempa'} is the inherently plural (but grammatically singular) {no'}. (Correct me if I'm wrong about this.) {qempa'QeH} looks like it originated from {qempa' QeH}. So if one were to pluralise {qempa'QeH}, would the plural be *{no'QeH}? Or is it a fossilised form? In that case, could one say {qempa'QeHpu'} or would it be {qepma'pu'QeH}? (I assume the plural suffix would be {-pu'} and not {-mey} because {qempa'QeHlI'} (not {-lIj}) is used on p.109). MO: >>> {qempa’QeH} is indeed a fossilized form, so don’t worry about its etymology (though you are correct about {no’} vs. {qempa’}). Generally speaking, you wouldn’t pluralize {qempa’QeH}. The word doesn’t refer to an individual, but to a unique group, the “proudest spirits of Gre’thor” (p. 108). There aren’t two groups of proudest spirits. I suppose you could write a story about the mirror universe where the {qempa’QeH} of one universe encounter the {qempa’QeH} of the other, so there would be two {qeppa’QeH}s. In that case, I’d go with {-pu’}. But otherwise, the plural isn’t likely to come up. (end of message) -- De'vID

3 3

Talk on translation & Klingon, Sat June 4 17:40 GMT+1
by Sai 27 May '22

27 May '22

https://www.emfcamp.org/schedule/2022/178-why-doesnt-the-universal-translat… (Unrelatedly, I'm also giving a talk at EMF, Fri June 3 13:40 GMT+1: https://www.emfcamp.org/schedule/2022/8-sense-without-sight-blind-navigatio… ) Don't know if it'll be live streamed, but recordings will be posted at https://www.youtube.com/c/ElectromagneticField/videos Sincerely, Sai Founder, Language Creation Society

1 0

{yeq} - no {-chuq} (no object)
by De'vID 27 May '22

27 May '22

De'vID: (p. 139, line 28) {lujang meQboghnom 'oH / yeqchuqchu'taHghach / Daw' je joqwI'} The question is whether the suffix {-chuq} is correct here. Does the subject cooperate with the object, do the (plural) subjects cooperate among themselves, or can the verb be used both ways? {yeq chaH} appears on p. 119 and 121. MO: >>> Right. You don’t need the chuq. So it should be {yeqchu’taHghach}. (end of message) -- De'vID

1 0