- tlhIngan-Hol - lists.kli.org

Klingon Word of the Day: betleH 'obe'
by Klingon Word of the Day 02 Jun '22

02 Jun '22

Klingon Word of the Day for Thursday, June 02, 2022 Klingon word: betleH 'obe' Part of speech: noun Definition: Order of the *Bat'leth* Source: This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

moon ph(r)ases, new adverbial {loQHa'}
by De'vID 02 Jun '22

02 Jun '22

(p. 181, line 31) {chu'DI' maS 'ej qaStaHvIS ram} "On the night of the new moon" De'vID: Not even every Terran language refers to the first lunar phase (opposite of a "full" moon) as a "new" moon. The issue here is whether this isn't an Anglicism/Terranism, or if Klingons also say the moon is “new". MO: >>> {chu’DI’ maS}, of course, means “when the moon is/was new” (not “the new moon”), but your point is a good one. Klingons would probably refer to the new moon in the same way they refer to other phases of the moon. “Full moon” {maS’e’ So’bogh pagh} is “moon that nothing hides.” “Crescent moon” (pp. 138-139 of paq’batlh) is {maS’e’ loQ So’be’bogh QIb} “moon that a shadow doesn’t slightly hide,” that is, the shadow hides most of the moon, but not all of it. What these have in common is the idea that the moon is fully or partially or not at all hidden. What’s doing/causing the hiding is of less importance. So while using {QIb} when describing phases of the moon is perfectly fine and not at all uncommon, it is not necessary. Another way of referring to a “crescent moon” is {maS loQHa’ So’lu’bogh} “moon that is considerably/appreciably hidden.” And {maS loQ So’lu’bogh} “moon that is slightly hidden” refers to a mostly full moon. Now, back to “new moon.” It follows the same pattern: {maS So’lu’chu’bogh} “moon that is perfectly hidden.” These moon phrases [sic] are descriptions. They’re commonly used, but they’re not frozen forms. So they can be manipulated grammatically. For line 31, p. 181, the idea is it’s the night when the new moon is happening (if a new moon can be said to happen), thus: {qaStaHvIS ram, maS So’lu’chu’DI’} “while the night was occuring, when the moon was perfectly hidden” or, in more natural English, “at night when the moon was new.” (end of message) Note the new adverbial {loQHa'} "considerably, appreciably". -- De'vID

9 26

inherently plural nouns when they are implied
by D qunen'oS 02 Jun '22

02 Jun '22

Suppose I'm telling the following story. There's a captain whose crew is incompetent. They have the targets in the screens in front of them, but they still can't see them. So the captain says: "Idiots.. They can't see the targets, even when the screens display them.." Which of the two should I write? QIpwI'pu'; ray' luleghlaHbe', vabDot lu'aghtaHvIS jIH. QIpwI'pu'; ray' luleghlaHbe', vabDot 'aghtaHvIS jIHmey. So I guess the question is this: When at a point of a passage an inherently plural noun has been stated, but in the subsequent story this noun is omitted (elided I think is the term), do we treat the thing described as singular or do we treat it as plural? Is the inherently plural noun treated as singular only when it is written, or are the things described by that noun to be considered as something singular for the duration of the remaining story, even when the inherently plural noun which describes them is omitted/elided? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ

5 7

Klingon Word of the Day: lo'laHbe'
by Klingon Word of the Day 01 Jun '22

01 Jun '22

Klingon Word of the Day for Tuesday, May 31, 2022 Klingon word: lo'laHbe' Part of speech: verb Definition: be worthless Source: TKD This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

3 3

Klingon Word of the Day: 'ung
by Klingon Word of the Day 01 Jun '22

01 Jun '22

Klingon Word of the Day for Wednesday, June 01, 2022 Klingon word: 'ung Part of speech: verb Definition: squat (down) Source: qep'a' 25 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

Klingon Word of the Day: 'an'ortej
by Klingon Word of the Day 01 Jun '22

01 Jun '22

Klingon Word of the Day for Saturday, May 28, 2022 Klingon word: 'an'ortej Part of speech: noun Definition: paleontologist Source: qepHom 2019 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

3 2

Klingon Word of the Day: taQbang
by Klingon Word of the Day 31 May '22

31 May '22

Klingon Word of the Day for Monday, May 30, 2022 Klingon word: taQbang Part of speech: noun Definition: exhaust Source: TKD (109 KE, 131 EK) This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

Klingon Word of the Day: jaS
by Klingon Word of the Day 31 May '22

31 May '22

Klingon Word of the Day for Sunday, May 29, 2022 Klingon word: jaS Part of speech: adv Definition: differently Source: TKD-A (182 KE, 187 EK) This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

new word {pal'ar} "kinsperson, family member"
by De'vID 28 May '22

28 May '22

In the first edition of the paq'batlh, the word {qorDu'} was used in some places to translate "kin", including sometimes using the suffixes {-wI'} and {-lI'}. Dr. Okrand confirmed that this is an error as (normally) a family is not a being capable of language. However, its members might be, for which he provided a new word. (I'd posted an earlier conservation I had with Dr. Okrand about some of this back in March, in a post with the subject "inherently plural nouns and collection nouns for groups of people (in the paq'batlh)".) The following was in response to my observation that "kin" wasn't translated consistently throughout the paq'batlh (in an intermediate draft of the 2nd edition). I've edited his message slightly to add context (his original message only had the page and line numbers and not the quotations) and remove some comments not relevant to the topic of this message, with my edits in [brackets]. MO: >>> I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the word “kin” in the English translations is, except for once, not used for family in general or family as a unit, but rather to refer to one person (Kahless’s brother or father) or sometimes two (brother and father) or maybe more — that is, it’s equivalent to “kinsperson” (if that’s a good English word) or “kinspersons.” When “kin” is referring to family in general or the family as a unit (not a collection of individuals), {qorDu’} is definitely correct. But {qorDu’} doesn’t seem right when referring to one or a number of family members. A better word for that is {pal’ar}. More specifically: [(p. 61, line 12) {batlh Hegh qorDu'lI'} "your kin will die with honor"] Change {qorDu’lIj} to {pal’arpu’lI’}. The idea is that a bunch of family members will die, not that the family will no longer exist. (It’s also odd for a “family” — distinct from the members of a family — to die.) [(p. 63, line 13) {qorDu'Daj lon} "He leaves his kin"] Same deal. Morath is going away from where his family members are, so change {qorDu’Daj} to {pal’arpu’Daj). [(p. 71, line 2) {ghobchuq vavwI' loDnI' je} "battle between my kin"] Here English “my kin” (p. 70) is specific in Klingon ({vavwI’ loDnI’ je}. A {-wI’} seems to be missing after {loDnI’}, but rather than stick in that {-wI’}, we should change the phrase to {pal’arpu’wI’} to match the English. [(p. 87, line 14) {qorDu'wI' vIQan} "I will save my kin"] Change {qorDu’wIj} to {pal’arpu’wI’}. Here again “kin” means specifically Kahless’s father and brother. [(p. 107, line 5) {qeylIS qorDu' je} "Kahless and his kin"] Change {qorDu’} to {pal’arpu’Daj}. [snip] “kin” in this passage is referring only to Kanjit and Morath. [(p. 183, line 3) {qorDu'wIj vImuv} "to be with my kin"] Change {qorDu’wIj} to {pal’arpu’wI’}. (Same comment as for p. 107 [referring to the fact that "kin" refers to Kanjit and Morath].) [(p. 191, line 33) {qeylIS qorDu' je} "with his kin"] Change {qorDu’} to {pal’arpu’Daj}. [(p. 195, line 1) {vavlI' loDnI'lI' je DaSammeH} "in search of your kin"] Which brings us to p. 195, which was what prompted the question in the first place. I think, for consistency, it would be good to change {vavlI’ loDnI’lI’ je} to {pal’arpu’lI’}. {qorDu’} on p. 145 is used in the phrase “family honor,” which is fine. No reference to individual family members. (end of message) -- De'vID

6 13

{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