- tlhIngan-Hol - lists.kli.org

hellenic gods - epithets of gods - athena part 1 of 3
by D qunen'oS 27 Jun '22

27 Jun '22

(The entire text can be found here: https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/athena-pongmey-chadich/. A big thanks to the people mentioned here: https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/acknowledgements/) *acraea/akraia/acraeus/akraios:* HuDmeyDaq bIHtaH ‘op Qun chIrgh’e’, ‘ej *acraea*/*akraia*/*acraeus*/*akraios* bIH Qunpu’vam pong cha’DIch’e’. be’ ghaHchugh Qun’e’, *acraea*/*akraia* ‘oH pongDaj cha’DIch’e’, ‘ej loD ghaHchugh Qun’e’, *acraeus*/*akraios* ‘oH pongDaj cha’DIch’e’. *zeus* *hera* *aphrodite* *pallas* *artemis* latlhpu’ je chaH Qunvam’e’. *aeolomorphus:* tu’qomDaj choHlaHbogh vay’. *aethyia/aithuia:* *megaria*Daq *athena* quvmoHlu’taHvIS, *athena* pongvam cha’DIch lo’lu’ je. bIQ’a’ qoD ‘elbogh vay”e’ Del *aithuia* mu’, ‘ej SorHa’lu’chugh, bIQ Duj Del je, vaj bIQ Duj chenmoHmeH mIw’e’ ghojmoHpu’bogh *athena* boplaw’ pongvam cha’DIch, ‘ej chIjmeH mIw’e’ ghojmoHpu’bogh *athena* boplaw’ je. ‘ach pongvam cha’DIch mung bopbogh latlh nger tu’lu’ je; *gannet* mID vay’ Del pongvam cha’DIch. *ageleia/ageleis:* pongvam cha’DIch luQIjbogh wej nger tu’lu’. nger wa’: *oxen*/*kine* QanwI’ Del pongvam cha’DIch. nger cha’: {Soch} mI’ wu’ ‘oS *ayaeleia* mu’, qo’vam chut’a’ mI’ ‘oH Soch’e’, ‘ej qo’vam chut’a’ rangmo’ *athena*, pongvam cha’DIch lInglu’pu’. ‘ach nger wejDIch tu’lu’ je, ‘ej nuvpu’ Devbogh/Qanbogh vay’ Del pongvam cha’DIch ‘e’ SovmoH ngervam. *aglaotimus:* vay’ quvmoHqu’lu’bogh. *agoraea/agoraia/agoraeus/agoraios:* ngevmeH Daq vay’. veng ngevmeH DaqDaq ghom nuvpu’, ‘op QunvaD ghommeyvam QanwI’ luDamlu’, vaj Hoch QunvamvaD *agoraea*/*agoraia*/*agoraeus*/*agoraios* ponglu’; be’ ghaHchugh Qun’e’, ghaHvaD *agoraea*/*agoraia* pong cha’DIch lo’lu’, ‘ej loD ghaHchugh Qun’e’, ghaHvaD *agoraeus*/*agoraios* ponglu’. *zeus* *athena* *artemis* *hermes* latlhpu’ je chaH Sarvam Qun’e’. *ajantis:* *ajax* vay’. *salamis* Sub ghaH *ajax*‘e’. *alalcomeneis/alalkomeneis/alalcomene:* pongvam cha’DIch lubopbogh ‘op nger tu’lu’. Sub ghaHbogh *alalcomenes*‘e’ bop pongvam cha’DIch ‘e’ SovmoH wa’ nger, ‘ej *boeotia* *alalcomenae* vengHom (pa’ boghpu’ *athena* net Har) ‘oH pongvam cha’DIch mung’e’ ‘e’ SovmoH latlh nger. ‘ach nger wejDIch tu’lu’ je’; pongvam cha’DIch lIng *alalkein* wot, vaj {HubwI’}/{HubwI’ HoSghaj} yajmoH pongvam cha’DIch. *alcis/alkis:* HoSbogh vay’. *macedonia*Daq *athena* quvmoHlu’taHvIS, pongvam cha’DIch lo’lu’ je. *alea:* *alea*Daq *mantineia*Daq *tegea*Daq je *athena* *alea* quvmoHlu’. *tegea*Daq *athena* *alea* chIrgh tu’lu’, chIrghvam ngo’ law’ Hoch ngo’ puS, ‘ej *aleus* (*apheidas* puqloD) ghaH chIrghvam chenmoHwI”e’ net Dam; vaj ghaytan *aleus* pongmo’ pongvam cha’DIch qonlu’pu’. tera’ DIS 394 -bov vorgh- chIrghvam meQlu’pu’, ‘ej ghIq chIrgh chu’ chenmoHpu’ *scopas*. chIrghvam chu’ tIn law’ Hoch *peloponnesus* chIrghmey tIn puS, chIrghvam Dun law’ Hoch *peloponnesus* chIrghmey Dun puS, chIrghvam luDech wej tut gho, ‘ej pIm Hoch tutvam Sar. *athena* Hew chenmoHpu’ *endoeus*, ‘e’levan Ho’ neH yugh, ‘ej ghIq ‘IHchoHmeH roma’ *forum* *augusti*, pa’ Hewvam qengpu’ *augustus*. tIQbogh lulIgh wembe’lu’bogh ‘ej quvqu’moHlu’bogh ‘oH *tegea* *athena* *alea* chIrgh’e’, Qan’eghmeH ‘ej toD’eghmeH nuv law’, pa’ lujaH, ‘ej nuvvam pong tamey tu’lu’. reH be’Hom ghaH *tegea* *athena* *alea* chIrgh maqlegh’e’, ‘ach jaqtala’ SIQchoHpu’DI’, Qu’vam turbe’choHpu’. *sparta* *therapne* je rarbogh tawDaq *athena* *alea* Hew tu’lu’ je. *alector:* *rooster* yajmoH ‘elaDya’ mu’ *alector*. *ambulia/amboulia/ambulius/amboulios/ambulii:* *zeus* *athena* *dioscuri* je quvmoHtaHvIS *spartans*, pongmeyvam cha’DIch lo’lu’ je. loD ghaHchugh Qun’e’ luquvmoHbogh, *ambulius*/*amboulios* lulo’, be’ ghaHchugh, *ambulia*/ *amboulia* lulo’, ‘ej Qun law’ chaHbogh Qun’e’ quvmoHbogh, *ambulii* lulo’. pongvam cha’DIch QIjlaHchu’be’ vay’, ‘ach chaq pongvam cha’DIch lIng *anaballo* mu’; lughchugh ngervam, Qunpu’vamvaD Hegh lulumbogh Qun’e’ Dam pongvam cha’DIch. ‘ach latlh nger tu’lu’ je. qeS vay’/qeSbogh vay’ Del pongvam cha’DIch ‘e’ SovmoH ngervam. *anassa:* voDleH, joH. *anemotis: *SuSmey vay’, SuSmey vItlhHa’choHmoHbogh vay’. *messenia* *mothone*Daq *athena* *anemotis* quvmoHlu’, ‘ej pa’ *athena* *anemotis* chIrgh tu’lu’. jevtaHvIS, Sep lurIQchoHmoHmo’ SuSmey vItlh, QaH *athena* ‘e’ tlhob *diomedes*, ‘ej ghIq mevpu’ SuSmeyvam. wanI’vammo’ *athena* *anemotis* chIrgh chenmoHpu’ *diomedes* net Har. *antrodiaetus:* DIS Dabbogh vay’. *apaturia/apatouria/apatouros: *tojbogh vay’. *athena* pongvam cha’DIch qonpu’ *aethra*. *areia:* vIDbogh vay’, noH bopbogh vay’, noH DI’onmey chIwbogh vay’, Suvrupbogh vay’. *athens*Daq pongvam cha’DIch *athena* quvmoHlu’ je. *athens*Daq *ares* chIrghDaq *ares* *aphrodite* *enyo* je Hewmey tu’lu’, ‘ej pa’ *athena* Hew tu’lu’ je. SoSDaj chotpu’ *orestes*; *orestes* pumlu’mo’, mIwba’ SIQpu’, ‘ach chun *orestes* ‘e’ wuq *areopagus*. ghIq *athens*Daq *athena* *areia* lalDanHom taghmoHpu’ *orestes*. wuqnIStaHvIS *areopagus* loHwI’pu’, ‘ach lappu’DI’ Hoch, rapchugh Hoch vuD Dop mIvwa’mey, ghIq lap *athena* *areia*. vaj chaq *ares* ‘oHbe’ pongvam cha’DIch mung’e’, ‘ej chaq *ara*/*areo*/*aresko* bIH pongvam cha’DIch mung’e’. DIp ‘oH *ara’*e’, ‘ej QunvaD SoQ jatlhbogh vay’ -Qun tlhobtaHvIS- yajmoH mu’vam. wot ‘oH *areo*‘e’/*aresko*‘e’, ‘ej >Qun chut vIpabHa’pu’, vaj Qunpu’ vIQeHHa’choHmoHmeH, jIvang;< wanI’vam luDel ‘elaDya’ Hol mu’vam. *arretus:* *athena* DeltaHvIS *athena* *orpheus* bom, *arretus* pong cha’DIch lo’ je. vay”e’ luDellaHbe’bogh mu’ yajmoH pongvam cha’DIch. *asia:* *asia* (*asia* QIv) vay’. *colchis*Daq *athena* quvmoHlu’taHvIS, pongvam cha’DIch lo’lu’ je. pa’vo’ *laconia*Daq lalDanHomDaj luqempu’ *castor* *polydeuces* je net Har, ‘ej *laconia*Daq *las*Daq *athena* *asia* chIrgh chenmoHlu’pu’. *assesia:* *ionia* *assesus* vengmo’ *athena* pongvam cha’DIch qonlu’pu’. pa’ *athena* *assesia* chIrgh tu’lu’. *axiopeonos/axiopoinos:* noDwI’. *sparta*Daq pongvam cha’DIch *athena* chIrgh chenmoHpu’ *heracles*, *hippocoon* puqloDpu’Daj je bIjqu’pu’DI’ *heracles*, *oeonus* luchotpu’mo’. *basileia:* voDleH. *bulaea: *rIp vay’. *athena* quvmoHlu’meH, rIp pa’Daq *athena* Hew tu’lu’. *celeuthia:* taw vay’. *chalcioecus/chalkioikos:* Sorpuq rom’on je juH Qun. *sparta*Daq Sorpuq rom’on je yughbogh *athena* chIrgh tu’lu’, chIrghvamDaq baSmeyvam *athena* Hew tu’lu’, vaj chIrghvammo’ *athena* pongvam cha’DIch qonlu’pu’, ‘ej *sparta*Daq *athena* quvmoHlu’taHvIS, pongvam cha’DIch lo’lu’ je. qaStaHvIS je *pausanias* poH, taH chIrghvam. chIrghvam chenchoHmoHpu’ *tyndareus* ngugh net Har, ‘ach qaSpu’pa’ latlh DIS law’, wej chIrghvam naQchoHmoHlu’pu’, ‘ej tagha’ chIrghvam naQchoHmoHpu’ wa’ *spartan* meHghem chenmoHwI’. *gitiadas* ‘oH pongDaj’e’. *chalinitis:* Sarghmey tlhay’choHmoHmeH vay’, SeHmeH tlheghmey lo’; vay’vam Del pongvam cha’DIch. SarghmeyDaq SeHmeH tlheghmey lanbogh vay’ Del je. *corinth*Daq pongvam cha’DIch *athena* chIrgh tu’lu’. *pegasus* tlhay’choHmoHta’ *athena*, ‘ej ghIq *bellerophontes*vaD *pegasus* nobpu’. lutvam qellu’chugh, pongvam cha’DIch yajlu’, ‘ach vabDot lutvam qelbe’lu’chugh, pongvam cha’DIch luQIj *athena* DI’onmey; yap. *cissaea:* tInchoHtaHbogh ‘arDeH vay’. *cleiduchus: *ngaQHa’moHwI’mey ‘uchbogh vay’. ‘avbogh Qun. *colocasia:* ‘oQqarmey’e’ SoplaHbogh vay’ bop pongvam cha’DIch. *core:* be’Hom, wej tlhoghpu’bogh be’. *coria:* be’Hom, wej tlhoghpu’bogh be’. *coryphagenes:* nachvo’ boghpu’bogh vay’. *coryphasia/koruphasia:* *coryphasion* puHley’mo’ pongvam cha’DIch qonlu’pu’. pa’ *athena* lulIgh quv tu’lu’. nach vay’ bop je pongvam cha’DIch. *cranais:* *cornel* Sor vay’. *cydonia/kudonia:* *crete* *cydonia* vay’. *elis*Daq *phrixa*Daq *athena* *cydonia* chIrgh tu’lu’, ‘ej chIrghvam chenmoHpu’ *cydonia* *clymenus* net Har. *cydre:* ngay’ vay’. Dunqu’bogh vay’. chuQun DI’onmey ‘aghbogh vay’. *cyparissia:* *messenia* *cyparissiae* vay’. *cypress* Sor lupochlu’pu’bogh vay’. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ

1 0

info from paq'batlh that's not really new
by De'vID 26 Jun '22

26 Jun '22

There were a couple of issues with or questions about things in the 1st edition of the paq'batlh that people had sent to me, which did not result in changes in the 2nd edition or any really new information. I don't want to go through the whole book saying "this didn't change, and this didn't change also...", but these particular topics came up in a discussion I was having with Lieven, so I might as well share them with the list. {vegh} ====== {ghe'tor vegh Duj / Suto'vo'qor lojmitmey 'ej Duj} "The Barge went through Gre'thor / Into the gates of Sto-vo-kor" Previously, we'd been told that {vegh} means to go through an opening of some sort, like a door or tunnel, but not going through a forest. The issue was whether going through Gre'thor isn't like going through a forest. The explanation is that this usage of {vegh} is fine, because earlier in the chapter, it said that "They set sail over the Blood River / To Gre'thor, or so Kahless thought." So {ghe'tor vegh Duj} means that the Barge went through Gre'thor as if it were merely an opening or passage to Sto-vo-kor. The role of Gre'thor is as an opening to get to somewhere else. So in context, this usage of {vegh} actually makes sense. There's another place in the paq'batlh where {DIS} "cave" is the object of {vegh}. Kahless goes through the cave to reach the world beyond the living. Again, this is fine, for the same reason. The point of the "tunnel" and "forest" examples when the word was originally given was that the object of {vegh} is an opening one passes through to get somewhere, not that those specific things can and can't, respectively, be the object of {vegh}. If someone enters a tunnel to explore it, spending a lot of time there wandering around to collect rocks or bugs or something, and comes out the other end by happenstance, it isn't {vegh}. If there's a tunnel-like path made by trees in an otherwise dense forest and one goes through it to reach the castle in the middle because that's the way to get there, that can be {vegh}. Whenever Dr. Okrand gives an example to illustrate how something can and can't be used, it always implies "typically" or "generally" or "usually", because of course one can find exceptions in atypical cases. One typically goes through a tunnel to reach the other end in a straightforward way; one typically goes through a forest in a meandering way. There are a couple of usages of {vegh} with {lojmIt[mey]} in the paq'batlh, and these are obviously fine and uncontroversial. {je}, {'ej} ====== {SanlIj DanarghlaHbe' / chalqachDaq bIQaDbe' je} "You cannot escape your fate, / Even in a tower you are not safe!" In TKD, it says that when {je} follows a verb, "The exact meaning is determined by context". The example it gives illustrates ambiguity in the subject and object. However, we already knew that it's more expansive than this, as SkyBox card 2 {SuvwI' taj} had the following: {ghop luQan tajHommey. pe'laH je.} "the small knives protect the hands; they can also cut". In the paq'batlh sentence, it's doing the same thing: "you cannot escape your fate; in a tower you are also not safe". The use of "even" instead of "also" is just because it's a more natural expression in English. {qatlh Sutamchu' tlhIH / SuvwI'pu' Hem boghIjlu''a' / tlhIH je qanra' puqloD pejatlh} "Why are you all silent? / You, proud warriors, are you afraid? / And you, sons of Kahnrah, speak up!" This usage of {je} is implicitly conjoining two nouns, namely {tlhIH} (referring to {SuvwI'pu' Hem}), and {tlhIH} (referring to {qanra' puqloD}). It's a bit complicated but It mirrors the English "you... and you", with other things in between. There are a number of places in the paq'batlh where the English has "And..." and the Klingon doesn't have {'ej...}, or vice versa. But this is fine when the meaning is clear. Translation isn't always so exact and literal, and involves other things like what flows better in each language. -- De'vID

5 11

some thoughts about canonicity
by De'vID 26 Jun '22

26 Jun '22

When the first edition of the paq'batlh came out, two points would often come up when something from it was cited as evidence for or against a particular opinion. The first was that it had questionable "canon" status because it wasn't "purely" from Dr. Okrand, due to lines having been changed on the advice of KLI members. The second was that it was poetry (being something like the text of an opera) and not prose, and it wasn't always clear whether a grammatical construct or particular phrasing was standard or poetic. I think neither has really changed with the 2ed. I know that the original edition of the paq'batlh was revised during two qep'a' based on comments from members of the KLI. I don't know whether the contribution was evenly distributed or heavily weighted towards one or a few people. (Maybe someone who took part can comment on this.) But for the 2nd edition, I have definitely had much more input into the Klingon text than anyone other than Dr. Okrand. Maybe in some people's minds that makes its "canon" status more questionable. What I would say in defense of the "canonicity" position is that Dr. Okrand certainly had editors for his other books and publications, and we don't know what inputs they had which resulted in changes to the Klingon text. For the movies, the editors even changed the meanings of lines he'd already written, forcing him to retroactively reinterpret them. In all of his previous projects, he was not composing his own Klingon sentences freely, but translating ideas first written by other people, to various degrees, and the paq'batlh is no exception. AFAIK, these writers and editors didn't know Klingon, and thus couldn't catch errors or point out things which might contradict (or at least raise questions about) things Dr. Okrand had previously written (which is how these issues survived until the paq'batlh). He'd worked with a Klingonist collaborator on Talk Now! Klingon, and some of his pronouncements in HolQeD or the qepHom'a' booklets are the results of interviews or exchanges with Klingonists. All of these things are normally considered "canon", and I think it's a fair argument that the paq'batlh 2ed is no less so canonical by the same criteria. It's also likely to be the longest Klingon text produced by him that we're ever going to get. But not everything in "canon" is necessarily an example of correct normal prose. There are, for example, "canon errors", like {nuqDaq So'taH yaS}. That brings us to the prose vs. poetry question. In-universe, as explained in the introduction, the paq'batlh was translated into modern Klingon from textual fragments in various stages of the Klingon language, and it is related to the libretto of the Klingon opera {'u'}. So it largely follows the rules of standard Klingon in the sense of Dr. Okrand's description of {ta' Hol} in his various works, but the fact that it is an opera also means that some rules are broken. For example, {jach} would normally be used with {jatlh}, like {jach veqlargh jatlh <blah>}. But there are three places where the Master of the Scream (MOS) narrates that someone shouts to Kortar to alert him that someone is bound for the Underworld, and the shouted words by that someone immediately follow (without {jatlh}). In addition, there's a chapter that ends with {jach qeylIS}, and the next chapter is just the words shouted by Kahless at Molor, followed by Molor's shouted reply. {jatlh} was deemed unnecessary in these cases because it's just the format of this particular operatic text. I hope it's mostly obvious when something is standard Klingon and when the rules are bent due to poetry, but it may sometimes be ambiguous. I think there's a mistake that many people often make when looking at "canon", and that is to consider every sentence written by Dr. Okrand (excepting known errors) as if it were an example of grammatical, normal, standard prose that one would find in a textbook, for the purpose of illustrating some point of grammar. What working with Dr. Okrand to edit the paq'batlh has clarified for me is that he plays two very different roles. Obviously, the first is that he's the creator of the Klingon language. But equally, he's also a user of the Klingon language, and it's important to keep that distinction in mind when evaluating his Klingon translations. Quite often, Dr. Okrand would agree that there are multiple ways of expressing something, but that he preferred one option over the others. Frequently, that preference was constrained by a very specific context, such as the number of syllables, or having to roughly match up with the English text, or alluding to another passage in the text. I don't think he intends that everyone should have the same preferences he does, and in particular I don't think he intends to imply that his preference in this one context would carry over to other contexts. But when people read the paq'batlh and they see how he's translated something, they might make the mistake of thinking that that's the "one true way" of expressing that idea. But in translating the paq'batlh, he isn't acting in the role of creator but of user. He may be a particularly privileged user in the sense that he can create new grammar and declare apparent errors to be actually correct, but he's still a user of the language, and in translating the paq'batlh he was subject to (almost) the same constraints as anyone else would be in that position. So I think that one has to be very careful in treating the paq'batlh as canon in that being a canonical text doesn't mean that everything in it is the only way to express something, or even the right way to do so in another context. I realise that viewing the paq'batlh in this way makes it less useful in settling debates or deriving grammatical rules, but the text is meant to be read and enjoyed as an epic story, and not as a guide to grammar. But I understand the motivation to treat it as one, given our paucity of Klingon sentences composed by Dr. Okrand. p.s. I know a lot of people will want to ask him for clarifications. While working with him, he acknowledged that he's sometimes contradicted himself and doesn't remember everything that he's ever written about a subject. In the job of editor, I basically researched and presented him with all of the relevant material I could find on a topic before asking him for clarifications, and that really allowed him to clarify and reconcile different things he's said written at different time (as I hope was evident in my previous posts about verbs of speech, {meQ}, {tuQmoH}, {Hoch}/{ngIq}, {-lu'}, and so on). If anyone wants him to clarify anything, it would be really helpful if you do the background research for him first. -- De'vID

2 1

Klingon Word of the Day: tuq
by Klingon Word of the Day 26 Jun '22

26 Jun '22

Klingon Word of the Day for Sunday, June 26, 2022 Klingon word: tuq Part of speech: noun Definition: tribe, house, ancestral unit Source: KGT This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

1 0

Klingon Word of the Day: toqwIn
by Klingon Word of the Day 24 Jun '22

24 Jun '22

Klingon Word of the Day for Friday, June 24, 2022 Klingon word: toqwIn Part of speech: noun Definition: (rubber) stamp Source: qepHom 2015 p.19 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

Klingon Word of the Day: nem
by Klingon Word of the Day 23 Jun '22

23 Jun '22

Klingon Word of the Day for Thursday, June 23, 2022 Klingon word: nem Part of speech: noun Definition: years from now Source: TKD (96 KE, 161 EK) This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

pronoun to use for mixed groups still an open question
by De'vID 23 Jun '22

23 Jun '22

There was a question about which pronoun {bIH} or {chaH} to use when referring to a mixed group containing both beings capable of language and other things. The question is still unresolved. TKD (p. 51) says: <The pronoun {chaH} "they" is used when it refers to a group of beings capable of using language; otherwise, {bIH} "they" is used.> In the 1st edition of the paq'batlh, there were two places where a pronoun referred to a mixed group. One of these ({wa' Dol bIH qa''e' porgh'e' je}) has been changed entirely. There's a second passage in which {chaH} apparently refers to a mixed group, which survived with some changes. Anticipating that readers might draw the wrong conclusion, Dr. Okrand offered an analysis of the passage. (His reference to "the earlier version" is a draft in which {chaH} was replaced with {Hoch}, which he later decided against.) The text: {Hoch tuqmey / Hoch puq poHmey / Hoch loDpu' be'pu' je / HarghmeH yeq chaH / molor HI''a' luSuv / lughIjlu'be' 'ej pujHa' 'e' lu'aghmeH Suv} "All tribes, / All ages, / All sexes, / United to do battle together! / Against the tyrant Molor! / Against fear and against weakness!" MO's comments: Clearly the subject of {Suv} in lines 5 and 6 (and the subject of {'agh} in line 6) are Kahless's warriors. The way the poetry works (and it's poetry, not standard prose) can be, I think, broken up into three bits: (1) A shout-out chant to all the tribes, ages, and sexes. What's coming involves everyone! No one is left out! (2) They unite to do battle! "They" and {chaH} here refer to the battlers (Kahless's warriors, including both men and women according to the Klingon text), not to tribes/ages. Tribes don't fight. Ages don't fight. People (warriors) do. (Even in the earlier version {Hoch} meant "everyone" — all the fighters — not "everything," though the Klingon word {Hoch} itself doesn't make that distinction.) (3) They battle Molor! They battle to show they're not afraid or weak! The unspoken "they" in the English and the unspoken {chaH} in the Klingon, again, refer to the warriors. All of this, of course, sheds no light on which third-person plural pronoun to use when referring to mixed groups. Looking at it now, I see the short description of {chaH} and {bIH} in TKD can be read in a couple of different ways regarding mixed groups. It doesn't address clearly how to handle this situation. (end of message) What Dr. Okrand is saying here is that the {chaH} in line 4 doesn't refer to everyone/everything listed in lines 1-3. Of course, Klingon can do metonymy and synecdoche, so something like the above can occur outside of poetry, too. It's like when you write in English, "The family went shopping. They bought..." (The pronoun for "family" is "it", but "they" refers to the members of the family.) -- De'vID

1 1

Klingon Word of the Day: DujtlhuQ
by Klingon Word of the Day 22 Jun '22

22 Jun '22

Klingon Word of the Day for Saturday, June 18, 2022 Klingon word: DujtlhuQ Part of speech: noun Definition: star shaped polygon (not a star in space) Source: Marc Okrand at European qepHom 1/25/2014 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

3 3

Klingon Word of the Day: babton
by Klingon Word of the Day 22 Jun '22

22 Jun '22

Klingon Word of the Day for Wednesday, June 22, 2022 Klingon word: babton Part of speech: noun Definition: pepper (capsicum) Source: qep'a' 28 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

Klingon Word of the Day: len
by Klingon Word of the Day 21 Jun '22

21 Jun '22

Klingon Word of the Day for Tuesday, June 21, 2022 Klingon word: len Part of speech: noun Definition: recess, break Source: TKD-A (182 KE, 186 EK, 190 EK) This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

3 2