On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 12:01 PM Riley Dosh <rjl.dosh@gmail.com> wrote:

Qapla'!

ghojchoHwI' jIH. tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhHa', 'ach mu'ghom vIlaDlaH. wej ngoDHommey jIHvaD vIghajbe'.

I noticed talk about neutral gender yesterday, which leads me to ask about LGBT terminology as a whole, since it's heavily gendered language.

Concerning trans people, I've defaulted to be' ghe'/be' ghe'pu' and loD ghe'/loD ghe'pu', but I welcome any suggestions.

The versions with -pu' would need to be relative clauses, since verbs used as adjectives can't take -pu'. ghe'pu'bogh be' or ghe'pu'bogh loD. You might also try the -ta' suffix, which indicates a completed accomplishment, as in ghe'ta'bogh be'. In an LGBT context it's probably fine, but outside of LGBT contexts it probably wouldn't immediately be interpreted as a reference to trans people.

As for gay/lesbian/bi and straight people, I'm have no idea, although I know it's been at least implied by MO before. Anybody know how one would say that?

There aren't really any words regarding sexual orientation or attraction, so translating those concepts might be wordy.

There's also the issue of how exactly relative clauses with nga'chuq would work. nga'chuqbogh loDpu' loD'e' je for "man who has sex with men"? nga'chuqbogh be'pu' loDpu' be''e' je for "woman who has sex with men and women"? Such a construction might be acceptable, but without further insight, it's definitely pushing up against the boundaries of the known grammar. ngagh doesn't have that particular issue, but I'm not sure it has quite the right connotations.