It always pisses me off, to read canon sentences which make no sense ;

matlhHa'lu'chugh vaj Doghlu' 'e' yaymeH molor

the way I understand the use of the suffix {-lu'}, and the way we have discussed it here so many months, it is used to mean that "someone does something to someone" ; not that "someone does something period". For the latter purpose we use {vay'}; not {-lu'}. If I want to say "someone confuses me" I will say {vImISmoHlu'}, and if I want to say "someone is confused" I will write {mIS vay'}. I can't write {mISlu'} meaning that "someone is confused". At the aforementioned jay' sentence we obviously have a meaning which goes something like "if someone is disloyal then someone is foolish..", and in order to describe this intended meaning we see the words {matlhHa'lu'chugh} and {Doghlu'} respectively. Are we serious ? And as if this crap wasn't enough we have {..yaymeH molor} ! wejpuH.. {yay} (n) = victory,triumph. So, are we applying verb suffixes to nouns nowadays ? But ok, ok.. I'll accept that the intended meaning word was {yay'} (v) = to be shocked, dumbfounded. And in that case we have this glorious canon sentence taking the meaning "if someone is disloyal then someone is foolish. molor in order to be shocked that" oh, how illuminating for a canon sentence.. moving on..

qorDu' SaHlu'chugh 'ej matlhlu'chugh vaj wa' tlhIngan ghob potlhqu'

The {qorDu' SaHlu'chugh} is correct. But when it comes to the {matlhlu'chugh} then again things make no sense. If the {matlhlu'chugh} is used on its own in order to say "if someone is loyal", then it is wrong. And if the {matlhlu'chugh} refers to the {qorDu'}, then again we have the meaning "if someone cares for his family, and if someone is loyal his family.." wejpuH.. And as if all these weren't enough, when we read past the {vaj} the sentence takes the meaning "then one (or one's) very important klingon virtue" and then period. ?!?!?! So, in today's canon sentences we come across the following two pearls: 1. if someone is disloyal then someone is foolish. molor in order to be shocked that 2. if someone cares for his family, and if someone is loyal his family then one (or one's) very important klingon virtue And I will ask again.. Are we serious ? These are the kind of canon sentences which are supposed to help people understand proper klingon ? qunnoq On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:

...

Klingon Word of the Day for Sunday, September 18, 2016

Klingon word: matlhHa' Part of speech: verb Definition: be disloyal

Qu' buSHa'chugh SuvwI', batlhHa' vangchugh, qoj matlhHa'chugh, pagh ghaH SuvwI''e' If a warrior ignores duty, acts dishonorably, or is disloyal, he is nothing. TKW

matlhHa'; romuluSngan rur disloyal as a Romulan KGT

matlhHa'lu'chugh vaj Doghlu' 'e' yaymeH molor [translation unavailable] (PB p.173)

Cf. {matlh} "be loyal" (v):

qorDu' SaHlu'chugh 'ej matlhlu'chugh vaj wa' tlhIngan ghob potlhqu' devotion and loyalty to family is one of the most important Klingon virtues. S13

matlh SuvwI'pu' Warriors are loyal. KGT

yoHbogh matlhbogh je SuvwI' Say'moHchu' may' 'Iw The blood of battle washes clean the warrior brave and true. (Anthem)

yab matlh muvchuqghach Sorgh vay' 'e' vIbotjaj. Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments. (Sonnet 116)

SEE ALSO: magh betray, act against 'ur commit treason Daw' revolt choS desert QuS conspire yuD be dishonest

'Il be sincere yuDHa' be honest

-- Voragh tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a' Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

SuStel:

But I can tell you that -lu' does not mean "someone does something to someone." It means "someone or something unspecified or abstract does something." Maybe it's done to something, maybe not.

This confuses me greatly; I read again section 4.2.5. of tkd, and yes the first thing it says is "This suffix is used to indicate that the subject is unknown, indefinite, and/or general". On the other hand though, immediately it continues by saying: "Since the subject is always the same (that is, it is always unstated), the pronominal prefixes (section 4.1.1) are used in a different way". And proceeds by giving examples of the kind "someone/something does something to someone/something". Even the example {Soplu'} is given as "it is eaten". Of course it could be also taken as "someone eats it"; but, how can someone write {Soplu'} in order to say "someone eats (period)" ? Perhaps you will answer by saying "even if you say someone eats (period), then again *that* someone is eating something so we essentially say the same thing". ok.. perhaps I can see your point; but my problem is that the tkd does not have a single example like {yItlu'} for "someone is walking", or {neplu'} for "someone is lying" etc. So, how can we accept such a usage of {-lu'} ? SuStel:

The difference is that vay' indicates a definite "someone," while -lu' might be used when that someone is more abstract

I can't understand this either; how is {lu'} abstract and {vay'} definite ? Both mean someone. Someone unknown/unspecified. I can't see any difference between them. qunnoq On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:55 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 9/19/2016 11:38 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:

It always pisses me off, to read canon sentences which make no sense ;

matlhHa'lu'chugh vaj Doghlu' 'e' yaymeH molor

the way I understand the use of the suffix {-lu'}, and the way we have discussed it here so many months, it is used to mean that "someone does something to someone" ; not that "someone does something period". For the latter purpose we use {vay'}; not {-lu'}.

I don't happen to have paq'batlh handy, so I can't tell you what the actual English version says, and I don't know what yaymeH means.

But I can tell you that -lu' does not mean "someone does something to someone." It means "someone or something unspecified or abstract does something." Maybe it's done to something, maybe not.

matlhHa'lu'chugh if someone unspecified is disloyal

Doghlu' someone unspecified is foolish

If I want to say "someone confuses me" I will say {vImISmoHlu'}, and if I want to say "someone is confused" I will write {mIS vay'}. I can't write {mISlu'} meaning that "someone is confused".

Sure you can. The difference is that vay' indicates a definite "someone," while -lu' might be used when that someone is more abstract (though it doesn't necessarily mean that).

At the aforementioned jay' sentence we obviously have a meaning which goes something like "if someone is disloyal then someone is foolish..", and in order to describe this intended meaning we see the words {matlhHa'lu'chugh} and {Doghlu'} respectively.

Are we serious ?

HIja'

qorDu' SaHlu'chugh 'ej matlhlu'chugh vaj wa' tlhIngan ghob potlhqu'

The {qorDu' SaHlu'chugh} is correct. But when it comes to the {matlhlu'chugh} then again things make no sense. If the {matlhlu'chugh} is used on its own in order to say "if someone is loyal", then it is wrong. And if the {matlhlu'chugh} refers to the {qorDu'}, then again we have the meaning "if someone cares for his family, and if someone is loyal his family.."

qorDu' SaHlu'chugh 'ej matlhlu'chugh if one cares about family and if one is loyal

And as if all these weren't enough, when we read past the {vaj} the sentence takes the meaning "then one (or one's) very important klingon virtue" and then period. ?!?!?!

The SkyBox cards have the most errors of all of Okrand's Klingon. He did them pretty early on. For your own sanity, just accept this.

And I will ask again.. Are we serious ? These are the kind of canon sentences which are supposed to help people understand proper klingon ?

The SkyBox cards never had the goal of helping people understand proper Klingon. They were made for Star Trek fans.

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

maj. I accept your explanation, and I will update/correct my notes/data base. SuStel, jIHvaD pabvam DaQIjta'mo' qatlho'. qunnoq ghogh HablI'wIjvo' vIngeHta' On 19 Sep 2016 8:03 p.m., "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 9/19/2016 12:18 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:

SuStel:

But I can tell you that -lu' does not mean "someone does something to someone." It means "someone or something unspecified or abstract does something." Maybe it's done to something, maybe not.

This confuses me greatly;

I read again section 4.2.5. of tkd, and yes the first thing it says is "This suffix is used to indicate that the subject is unknown, indefinite, and/or general".

On the other hand though, immediately it continues by saying: "Since the subject is always the same (that is, it is always unstated), the pronominal prefixes (section 4.1.1) are used in a different way". And proceeds by giving examples of the kind "someone/something does something to someone/something".

Even the example {Soplu'} is given as "it is eaten". Of course it could be also taken as "someone eats it"; but, how can someone write {Soplu'} in order to say "someone eats (period)" ?

If I wrote *Sop HoD,* does it mean *the captain eats* or *the captain eats it?* It means both! You know that.

So why should it trouble you that *Soplu'* means both *one eats* and *one eats it?*

Perhaps you will answer by saying "even if you say someone eats (period), then again *that* someone is eating something so we essentially say the same thing".

ok.. perhaps I can see your point; but my problem is that the tkd does not have a single example like {yItlu'} for "someone is walking", or {neplu'} for "someone is lying" etc. So, how can we accept such a usage of {-lu'} ?

How about *quSDaq ba'lu''a'** Is this seat taken?* in the appendix?

SuStel:

The difference is that vay' indicates a definite "someone," while -lu' might be used when that someone is more abstract

I can't understand this either; how is {lu'} abstract and {vay'} definite ? Both mean someone. Someone unknown/unspecified. I can't see any difference between them.

*vay'* is a subject; *-lu'* is just the lack of a subject.* -lu'* means "Obviously something or someone does this action, but I'm not gonna say what it is."

-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

Am 20.09.2016 um 08:24 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:

Thinking this over today with a clear mind, I continue being unable to grasp how {vay'} is definite while {-lu'} is abstract. Both refer to an unknown person. Unknown, by definition, is abstract and indefinite..

I know it'S hard to understand, as these are very close to each other. Maybe some more examples can clarify. A person rings at the door. You do not know who it is, but you know there is someobody, so it's not indefinite. {wab chenmoH vay'} There are some people in the room who hear the sound of the bell. You can say {wab luQoy} "they hear the sound", but in a way of storytelling you can say {wab Qoylu'} "One hears the sound" or "a sound can be heard". One othor, more frequently used form is the expression {tu'lu'}, usually tanslated as "there is". Literally it means "one [indefinite] discovers" - it does not mean that somebody does discover things: {tlhInganpu' tu'lu'} "there are Klingons here" = "a not specified, generel person does discover Klingons" = "one can find Klingons here" {tlhInganpu' tu' vay'} "somebody, a real, existing person, discovers Klingons" (you could give that person a name if you know him) Hope this helps a bit. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/ThereIs

lieven:

Hope this helps a bit

Yes, it does ! And I think I understand (finally) what's going on. If I walk in the kitchen to see that someone ate my pie, then I will say: {QI'yaH ! chabwIj Sopta' vay' !} But if I want to say that "when someone eats pizza, he always needs to drink beer too", then I will say {pItSa' chab Soplu'taHvIS vaj reH HIq tlhutlhnISlu' je} Because I learned something new, I'm happy, however it amazes me, how something so important eluded me so far.. De'vID:

The Skybox cards were full of minor transcription errors, so we know somebody involved in putting them together had been somewhat careless

maj. This explains a lot actually, however it is a pity something like this is the case; canon is supposed to enlighten people and not confuse them. qunnoq On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:53 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

On 19 September 2016 at 17:38, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

...

It always pisses me off, to read canon sentences which make no sense ;

...

qorDu' SaHlu'chugh 'ej matlhlu'chugh vaj wa' tlhIngan ghob potlhqu'

The {qorDu' SaHlu'chugh} is correct. But when it comes to the {matlhlu'chugh} then again things make no sense. [...]

Others have addressed the {-lu'} part, so I'll skip it.

...

And as if all these weren't enough, when we read past the {vaj} the sentence takes the meaning "then one (or one's) very important klingon virtue" and then period. ?!?!?!

It's generally recognised that whoever transferred Okrand's sentence to the card dropped a verb at the end of that sentence, probably {tu'lu'}. (The Skybox cards were full of minor transcription errors, so we know somebody involved in putting them together had been somewhat careless.)

-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

SuStel:

Use *-lu'* when you want to de-emphasize the role of the subject in the sentence, or when you just don't know or don't care who or what the subject is. Use *vay'* when you want to talk about *someone* or *something* and have them play an active role in the sentence.

this is beautiful ! thanks ! qunnoq ghogh HablI'wIjvo' vIngeHta' On 20 Sep 2016 6:29 p.m., "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 9/20/2016 11:19 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:

lieven:

Hope this helps a bit

Yes, it does ! And I think I understand (finally) what's going on.

If I walk in the kitchen to see that someone ate my pie, then I will say: {QI'yaH ! chabwIj Sopta' vay' !}

But if I want to say that "when someone eats pizza, he always needs to drink beer too", then I will say {pItSa' chab Soplu'taHvIS vaj reH HIq tlhutlhnISlu' je}

Because I learned something new, I'm happy, however it amazes me, how something so important eluded me so far..

Don't take this too far. It would also be perfectly correct to say *chabwIj Soplu'ta'** my pie has been eaten.* *-lu'* is not only for hypothetical or subjunctive uses.

It's a matter of focus. *-lu'* takes the focus away from whoever would be the subject of the sentence, because it removes the subject entirely.

*chabwIj Sopta' vay''e' **someone, definitely someone, has eaten my pie*

*chabwIj Soplu'ta' * *my pie has been eaten *

In the former sentence, I'm focusing very strongly on the culprit. In the latter, I'm focusing on my pie and the fact of its having been eaten; I'm not considering who has done it.

Use *-lu'* when you want to de-emphasize the role of the subject in the sentence, or when you just don't know or don't care who or what the subject is. Use *vay'* when you want to talk about *someone* or *something* and have them play an active role in the sentence.

-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org