- tlhIngan-Hol - lists.kli.org

Klingon Word of the Day: qelHay'ya
by Klingon Word of the Day 05 Oct '20

05 Oct '20

Klingon Word of the Day for Sunday, October 04, 2020 Klingon word: qelHay'ya Part of speech: noun Definition: Kal'Hyah Source: qep'a' 26 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

Klingon Word of the Day: yay
by Klingon Word of the Day 05 Oct '20

05 Oct '20

Klingon Word of the Day for Friday, October 02, 2020 Klingon word: yay Part of speech: noun Definition: victory, triumph Source: TKD (114 KE, 158 EK, 160 EK) This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

3 3

lir 'oHbe' Depvam'e'
by mayqel qunen'oS 03 Oct '20

03 Oct '20

'op ret mIlloghvam vIleghpu': https://www.flickr.com/photos/rachael_p/50386221648/ 'ej SIbI' muSujpu' mIlloghvam.. lIr 'aghlaw', 'a mIlloghvam pojchoHchugh nuv, SIbI' yajchoH.. lIr 'oHlaHbe' Depvam'e'. Sojchaj lujonmeH lIr, gheDchaj luHIv, puvtaHvIS lIrmey. 'ach jaS vang Depvam. SojDaj SuqmeH, yIt. 'ej tlhay'ba' je. 'a jaSHa' vang tera' qovIjmey ngavyaw'mey je. wanI'vam'e' 'aghbogh mIlloghvam vIpojpu', 'ej tagha' qaSbogh ghu' vIyajpu'. tera' qovIj lujonpu' romuluSngan, 'ej porgh tu'qomDaj luchoHta'. numISmoHmeH, vangpu' romuluSnganpu', 'ej chaq latlh nabmey mIgh turtaH je. vaj maDughnIStaH.. ~ Qa'yIn

1 0

Additional question about SAOs
by Luis Chaparro Caballero 03 Oct '20

03 Oct '20

Hi, I've been thinking about the example SuStel gave to me in order to explain how SAOs should be understood as one singular idea. > You should think of sentence-as-object constructions as if they were single ideas. A Klingon who says *paq Daje'pu' 'e' vISov* isn't saying two separate > things; it's just one idea. Consider the sentence *romuluSngan HoHpu' tlhIngan 'e' vIleghbe'*/I didn't see the Klingon kill the Romulan./ The idea here > isn't that the Klingon killed the Romulan AND that I saw it. We don't know if the Klingon actually killed the Romulan; all we know is that I didn't see > any such act. It's one idea. If we want it to be two different ideas, that is, an assertion about a fact AND an assertion about my perception, then we need something like a conjunction, right? *... 'ach 'e' vIleghbe'*. A sentence like „I saw that he stole the money“ is in the first place a sentence about my perception, not about a fact. It's something I can say if someone thinks I couldn't see this event from my position or I haven't seen it properly, or maybe if I'm describing what I saw in a dream. But if I say: „He stole the money“, I'm giving information about a fact, about something that happened. It's something I can say if someone asks: „Who stole the money?“. And if we want to convince the other person or we try to prove why our assertion is true, we could say something like: „He has stolen the money, I saw it!“, that is, nobody told me, I haven't read it in the newspaper, I saw it with my own eyes. (Well, I hope my English is at this point right, in Spanish and German something like this is possible). But if we say in Klingon: *Huch nIHpu'. 'e' vIlegh.* since punctuation or a pause when we're speaking makes no difference, the meaning of this sentence is always: „I saw that he stole the money“. So, how can we translate a sentence like „He stole the money. I saw it!“? (I mean, as an assertion about a fact + an assertion about my perception). If a pause between the sentences doesn't help, do we need a noun?: *Huch nIHpu'. wanI'vam vIleghpu'* Or am I seeing a problem where there is no one? Thank you!

4 5

using "right" (side) and "left" (side) with possessive suffixes on their own
by mayqel qunen'oS 02 Oct '20

02 Oct '20

Ca'Non mu'tlheghvam yIlaD: poSDaq nIHDaq je QamtaHvIS SuvwI'pu', chaH jojDaq yItnIS lopwI' The initiate must pass through a gauntlet of warriors. S9 'ej tera' poH DaSjaj, jar wa'maH, jaj wa'maH loSDIch, DIS cha'-pagh-wa'-Hut (14 October 2019) lInpu' voragh: (Qov, reporting on qep'a' 2015, 8/05/2015): I asked [Okrand] about how we would describe someone’s right hand. I said I would say {nIHwIj ghop} "the hand of my right side" and he said "I would do that too," making a dissatisfied face about the alternative {nIH ghopwIj} "my hand of the right side". I asked "or are {nIH} and {poS} like {tlhop} and {‘em}, taking the pronoun rather than the possessive suffix?" but he felt that {nIHwIj} was correct. DaH jIghel.. jIjatlh vIneH "one of you will stand on my left, and one of you will stand on my right"; cha' DuH tu'lu': DuH wa': poSwIjDaq QamnIS wa', 'ej nIHwIjDaq QamnIS latlh one needs to stand on my left, and the other needs to stand on my right DuH cha': poSwIj DaqDaq QamnIS wa', 'ej poSwIj DaqDaq QamnIS latlh one needs to stand at the location of my left, and the other needs to stand at the location of my right nuq 'oH DuH lugh'e'? lugh DuH wa' 'e' vI'ir, S9 Ca'Non mu'tlhegh vIqeltaHvIS, 'ach lugh DuH cha' 'e' vI'Ir, 08/05/2015 De' vIqeltaHvIS.. ~ Qa'yIn

3 5

does -jaj have the "may your request be granted" meaning ?
by mayqel qunen'oS 01 Oct '20

01 Oct '20

SoS tu'lu', 'ej bIghHa'Daq ghaHtaH puqloDDaj'e'. puqloDDaj jonHa'meH voDleH, voDleH qoy'choH SoS, 'ej tagha' Qochbe' voDleH, vaj jatlh: "may your request be granted". mu'tlheghvam wImughmeH, maqon: {qaSjaj chaballIj}. lugh'a' {-jaj} lo'vam ? ~ Qa'yIn

6 12

Klingon Word of the Day: Sab
by Klingon Word of the Day 01 Oct '20

01 Oct '20

Klingon Word of the Day for Thursday, October 01, 2020 Klingon word: Sab Part of speech: verb Definition: decline, deteriorate Source: TKD (106 KE, 127 EK, 128 EK) This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

Klingon Word of the Day: ngat 'atlhqam
by Klingon Word of the Day 30 Sep '20

30 Sep '20

Klingon Word of the Day for Wednesday, September 30, 2020 Klingon word: ngat 'atlhqam Part of speech: noun Definition: a type of mold Source: qep'a' 25 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

1 0

Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Beginner questions - SAO, SAS and pronouns
by Luis Chaparro Caballero 29 Sep '20

29 Sep '20

1 1

Beginner questions - SAO, SAS and pronouns
by Luis Chaparro Caballero 29 Sep '20

29 Sep '20

Hi SuStel, thank you very much for your answer. It was really clarifying! The discussion I was referring to (about droping the pronoung "'e'") is here: http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2017-September/005856.h… But your explanation makes it clear for me. I still have some questions nonetheless: > When you explicitly use a pronoun, you're making it clear that that's > the pronoun you have in mind, or you're speaking extra-clearly to make > sure you've been heard. If I say *HoD Duj vIlegh*/I see the captain's > ship/ and then follow it up with *vIghov,* am I saying I recognize the > captain or the ship? I can clarify by explicitly using a pronoun: *ghaH > vIghov*/I recognize him/her/ or *'oH vIghov*/I recognize it./ > Here the prefix makes the sentence clear. Why do we use "jIH" here if its not for emphasis? I understand we can use the pronouns in order to make an ambiguous sentence clear. But in TKD we see this example: yaS vIlegh jIH Here the prefix makes the sentence clear. Why are we using "jIH"? Is that what you mean when you say "speaking extra-clearly to make sure you've been heard"? > > 3. And what if the first sentence is intended to be the subject of the second one? paq Daje'pu'. QaQ. > I would assume that the elided subject of *QaQ* is *paq.* You cannot > have a sentence act as subject. This pair of sentences cannot mean /Your > buying the book was good./ > Another reason to think that you can't elide *'e'* as object. So if I want to say something like "It's good that you have bought the book" or "Your buying the book is good" and avoid that people understand "the book is good", then I need a noun, since a sentence cannot be the subject of another sentence, right? So maybe: paq Daje'pu'. QaQ wanI'vam. > You're on the right track. I'd probably use *wanI'* for this: *bIlaDtaH. > QaQ wanI'vam'e'.*/You are reading. THAT (and not something else) is > good./ But these are definitely two separate sentences in Klingon. And if I want to put emphasis, then I use "-'e'": paq Daje'pu'. QaQ wanI'vam'e'. But then I'm not sure if I understand the sentence in "Star Trek Discovery": tlhIngan maH. taHjaj. Isn't the subject of "taHjaj" the sentence "tlhIngan maH"? Something like: "It may endure, that we are Klingons", or "Our being Klingons may endure"? What is otherwise the subject of "taHjaj"? Shouldn't we use here some sort of noun, like in "paq Daje'pu'. QaQ wanI'vam." I'm probably missing something important, sorry!

5 12