Klingon Word of the Day for Friday, September 29, 2017 Klingon word: vung Part of speech: verb Definition: cyclone, hurricane Source: qep'a' 24 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh@kli.org).
Klingon word: vung Part of speech: verb Definition: cyclone, hurricane Source: qep'a' 24 [2017] _______________________________________________ "storm like a hurricane/cyclone" SEE ALSO: jev storm (v) SIS rain (v) cheq storm like a tornado, tornado (v) ver be spiral (v) (qurgh < MO, qep'a' 2017): You can also say {ver SuS'a'} "a tornado happens" (literally: "the big wind spirals"). {ver SuS} (or {ver SuSHom}) would most likely refer to a whirlwind. -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
Here's a question: Since the implied subject of weather words is usually *muD* (or sometimes maybe *chal* for precipitation and the like), how would you all interpret *vungwI'*? Would you read it as the noun "hurricane", as in the part of the atmosphere that's hurricaning, considered as a single system? (So you could perhaps say something like *FloridaDaq ghoSlI' 'Irma' vungwI'* *"Hurricane Irma is approaching Florida"*, with the assumption that "hurricane" is treated like a rank or title.) Or would it be taken to mean something less specific or useful, like "the atmosphere as a whole, which happens to be hurricaning somewhere", assuming it means anything at all? On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Klingon word: vung Part of speech: verb Definition: cyclone, hurricane Source: qep'a' 24 [2017] _______________________________________________
"storm like a hurricane/cyclone"
SEE ALSO: jev storm (v) SIS rain (v) cheq storm like a tornado, tornado (v) ver be spiral (v)
(qurgh < MO, qep'a' 2017): You can also say {ver SuS'a'} "a tornado happens" (literally: "the big wind spirals"). {ver SuS} (or {ver SuSHom}) would most likely refer to a whirlwind.
-- Voragh 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
po'wI' jIHbe'mo', ram vuDwIj.. 'a {vungwI'} vilaD net jalchugh, vaj "hurricaner" vIyaj. "hurricane" vIyajbe'.. qunnoq On Sep 29, 2017 19:25, "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
Here's a question: Since the implied subject of weather words is usually *muD* (or sometimes maybe *chal* for precipitation and the like), how would you all interpret *vungwI'*? Would you read it as the noun "hurricane", as in the part of the atmosphere that's hurricaning, considered as a single system? (So you could perhaps say something like *FloridaDaq ghoSlI' 'Irma' vungwI'* *"Hurricane Irma is approaching Florida"*, with the assumption that "hurricane" is treated like a rank or title.) Or would it be taken to mean something less specific or useful, like "the atmosphere as a whole, which happens to be hurricaning somewhere", assuming it means anything at all?
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Klingon word: vung Part of speech: verb Definition: cyclone, hurricane Source: qep'a' 24 [2017] _______________________________________________
"storm like a hurricane/cyclone"
SEE ALSO: jev storm (v) SIS rain (v) cheq storm like a tornado, tornado (v) ver be spiral (v)
(qurgh < MO, qep'a' 2017): You can also say {ver SuS'a'} "a tornado happens" (literally: "the big wind spirals"). {ver SuS} (or {ver SuSHom}) would most likely refer to a whirlwind.
-- Voragh 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
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
ghunchu'wI':
toH. «qay'wI'» DalaDDI', nuq Dayaj?
I would understand "something that is a problem". Am I wrong ? qunnoq On Sep 29, 2017 20:29, "Alan Anderson" <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 12:30 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
'a {vungwI'} vilaD net jalchugh, vaj "hurricaner" vIyaj. "hurricane" vIyajbe'..
toH. «qay'wI'» DalaDDI', nuq Dayaj?
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 9/29/2017 1:42 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
ghunchu'wI':
toH. «qay'wI'» DalaDDI', nuq Dayaj?
I would understand "something that is a problem". Am I wrong ?
*vungwI'*/something that hurricanes./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I still don't understand..{qay'wI'} for "something that is a problem" is wrong ? qunnoq On Sep 29, 2017 20:50, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 9/29/2017 1:42 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
ghunchu'wI':
toH. «qay'wI'» DalaDDI', nuq Dayaj?
I would understand "something that is a problem". Am I wrong ?
*vungwI'** something that hurricanes.*
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 9/29/2017 1:53 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
I still don't understand..{qay'wI'} for "something that is a problem" is wrong ?
qunnoq
On Sep 29, 2017 20:50, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
On 9/29/2017 1:42 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
ghunchu'wI': > toH. «qay'wI'» DalaDDI', nuq Dayaj?
I would understand "something that is a problem". Am I wrong ?
*vungwI'*/something that hurricanes./
No, *qay'wI'* is /something that is a problem./ But you were having trouble understanding *vungwI',* so ghunchu'wI' compared it to *qay'wI',* which you use all the time. Personally, I wouldn't use *qay'wI'* as often as you do, and wouldn't at all for /hurricane./ I wouldn't say *qay'wI' vIghaj* or *qay'wI' tu'lu';* I'd say *qay' vay'.* I WOULD use *qay'wI'* in a sentence like *qay'wI' yIngu'*/Identify the thing that is a problem./ But once that had been identified, I would at most use it as an adjectival verb: *jolvoy' qay' vItI'*/I fix the problematical transporter ionizer unit./ Klingon likes precision. It's not wrong. It's just not using Klingon in its strongest way. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
It's not wrong. It's just not using Klingon in its strongest way.
ok, I understand ! thank you for explaining this ! qunnoq On Sep 29, 2017 21:05, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 9/29/2017 1:53 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
I still don't understand..{qay'wI'} for "something that is a problem" is wrong ?
qunnoq
On Sep 29, 2017 20:50, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 9/29/2017 1:42 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
ghunchu'wI':
toH. «qay'wI'» DalaDDI', nuq Dayaj?
I would understand "something that is a problem". Am I wrong ?
*vungwI'** something that hurricanes.*
No, *qay'wI'* is *something that is a problem.* But you were having trouble understanding *vungwI',* so ghunchu'wI' compared it to *qay'wI',* which you use all the time.
Personally, I wouldn't use *qay'wI'* as often as you do, and wouldn't at all for *hurricane.* I wouldn't say *qay'wI' vIghaj* or *qay'wI' tu'lu';* I'd say *qay' vay'.* I WOULD use *qay'wI'* in a sentence like *qay'wI' yIngu'** Identify the thing that is a problem.* But once that had been identified, I would at most use it as an adjectival verb: *jolvoy' qay' vItI'** I fix the problematical transporter ionizer unit.* Klingon likes precision.
It's not wrong. It's just not using Klingon in its strongest way.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:53 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I still don't understand..{qay'wI'} for "something that is a problem" is wrong ?
I think the idea here is "why wouldn't you just translate *qay'wI'* as the noun 'problem'?" On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:10 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
I wouldn't assume that *vungwI'* is the noun form of *hurricane* any more than I would assume that *SISwI'* is the noun form of *rain.*
I'm not sure the distinction is quite the same. Rain, as a noun and verb, and presumably *SIS* also, refers mainly to the precipitation, whereas *SISwI'*, if it meant anything, would probably refer to the rainclouds, which have rain as one of their effects but are considered a distinct thing from rain itself. Whereas in the case of hurricanes, the English noun refers to both the weather conditions (rain, wind, storm surge, the stuff associated with *vung*) brought about by the weather system, as well as the weather system itself. Now that I think about it, *vungwI'* might best be translated as the entire system that gives rise to hurricane conditions. Not just the big swirly mass of clouds you see on satellite pictures, but also the ocean temperatures and currents, the steering winds, the jet stream, the interactions with land, and so on, taken in a somewhat more holistic sense. Likewise, *cheqwI'* would not simply mean the funnel cloud, but also the storm cloud it hangs off from and the various updrafts and downdrafts within it. And *SISwI'* would not *just* be a raincloud but also the various cold or warm fronts that created it. I might be thinking about this too meteorologically, though.
Instead of trying to turn it into a noun, use it as a subjectless verb.
*tugh **Florida**Daq vung; ghoSlI' **Irma.*
That works fine in a lot of cases, e.g. *naDev qen vung*, *"A hurricane came through here recently."* But sometimes it's more convenient to be able to refer to hurricanes as discrete things, like if you want to refer to their size or intensity or track. I wonder if the *ver SuS'a'* example for tornadoes could apply here: *vungbogh SuS'a'*, and perhaps *jevbogh SuS* for smaller storms. And *vungbogh 'eng(mey)* for the big swirly thing in the satellite pictures.
On 9/29/2017 2:49 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:10 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
I wouldn't assume that *vungwI'* is the noun form of /hurricane/ any more than I would assume that *SISwI'* is the noun form of /rain./
I'm not sure the distinction is quite the same. Rain, as a noun and verb, and presumably *SIS* also, refers mainly to the precipitation, whereas *SISwI'*, if it meant anything, would probably refer to the rainclouds, which have rain as one of their effects but are considered a distinct thing from rain itself. Whereas in the case of hurricanes, the English noun refers to both the weather conditions (rain, wind, storm surge, the stuff associated with *vung*) brought about by the weather system, as well as the weather system itself.
Let me rephrase to make it clear what I meant. I wouldn't assume *vungwI'* is the noun meaning /hurricane /any more than I would assume that *SISwI'* is the noun meaning /rain event./
Instead of trying to turn it into a noun, use it as a subjectless verb.
*tugh */Florida/*Daq vung; ghoSlI' */Irma./
That works fine in a lot of cases, e.g. *naDev qen vung*, /"A hurricane came through here recently."/ But sometimes it's more convenient to be able to refer to hurricanes as discrete things, like if you want to refer to their size or intensity or track.
Yep, it would be convenient. But they're verbs, and that's how the language works. Find a way around it. *qen naDev vung. vaghvatlh qelI'qam juch wanI'. wej 'oH SeghDaj'e'. vIlo'rIDa ghoSlI'.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 9/29/2017 3:20 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 3:07 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
Yep, it would be convenient. But they're verbs, and that's how the language works. Find a way around it.
A phrase like *vungbogh SuS'a'* or *vungbogh muD* /is/ a way around it.
Very good! So does *vungbogh muD* refer to only that section of the atmosphere that is hurricaning? When one says *SIS muD,* one is not talking about the part of the atmosphere that is raining as a thing discrete from the rest. Does only a *SuS'a'* do *vung,* or can an ordinary *SuS* vung as well? Can the *SuS* do *SIS*? Just to remind us all...
It rained a few times during the weekend, so we were put into the situation to discuss it.SISSISqu'SIStaHSISchoHAll correct. SISlu', altho grammaticlly correct, he didn't particularly like. Someone COULD use it but to me it sounds like they skipped science class and don't know what the subject is. You can also give it an object and say things like the clouds rained down cats and dogs. ...or something like that; you get the idea. But when Marc and I went outside and drops of water were falling on us, he looked up and simply said "SIS". Do you think we can say *SuS vung muD*? We can say *pey SIS */it rained acid/*,* as per the above.**And if we can, can we also still say *vung SuS*?
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 3:36 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
Very good! So does *vungbogh muD* refer to only that section of the atmosphere that is hurricaning? When one says *SIS muD,* one is not talking about the part of the atmosphere that is raining as a thing discrete from the rest.
Maybe not, but if someone used *SISbogh muD* instead, I would expect they were talking about the atmosphere that is raining as opposed to the part that is not. Otherwise, why mention the rain at all? Do you think we can say *SuS vung muD*? We can say *pey SIS **it rained
acid**,* as per the above. And if we can, can we also still say *vung SuS* ?
I don't know if *SuS vung muD* is legitimate, although if it is, it's probably as redundant as saying *bIQ SIS*. It seems like your underlying question here is something along the lines of "is wind the subject or object of 'hurricaning'?" You could interpret the wind as the result of a larger atmospheric system, which would suggest using *SuS vung muD* or just *vung muD*. The winds themselves are also a major part of what drives a hurricane internally, which suggests *vung SuS* would also be reasonable. Granted, the winds themselves don't generate the rain (which I think is what you were getting at with "Can the *SuS* do *SIS*?" question), except maybe in the broad sense that they can circulate moist air within the system, so *muD* is probably preferable as the subject if you want scientific precision. *SuS* or *SuS'a'* aren't entirely unreasonable subjects, though, and might be preferable if you want to focus on the hurricane's winds or if you want an evocative noun instead of a precise one. Also, going back to my original question, I remembered Okrand's translation of Sonnet 116 mentions some weather (his Klingon and his English):
*jevqu'taHvIS muD ral, bejlI' parmaq. Qombe'! nISbe' jevwI', 'ej not ruS baq.* [...] *While the violent atmosphere storms, love still watches. It does not tremble! The storm does not disrupt it, and it never terminates the bond.*
Which suggests that *muD* is a reasonable explicit subject for weather verbs, and that *-wI'* can be used to refer to weather verbs as discrete systems (so *vungwI'* would then be a way to talk about hurricanes as nouns).
On 9/29/2017 4:41 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
Also, going back to my original question, I remembered Okrand's translation of Sonnet 116 mentions some weather (his Klingon and his English):
*jevqu'taHvIS muD ral, bejlI' parmaq. Qombe'! nISbe' jevwI', 'ej not ruS baq.* [...] /While the violent atmosphere storms, love still watches. It does not tremble! The storm does not disrupt it, and it never terminates the bond./
Which suggests that *muD* is a reasonable explicit subject for weather verbs, and that *-wI'* can be used to refer to weather verbs as discrete systems (so *vungwI'* would then be a way to talk about hurricanes as nouns).
That we can use *muD* is not in question; Okrand confirmed that long ago. The question is not what words can be used, but how they are used by Klingons. One CAN say *SISlu',* said Okrand, but one doesn't. Good find with the sonnet, though there's the caveat that Okrand wrote one half and an unidentified Klingonist wrote the other half, and the half without the *jev* seems more likely to be Okrand's work. We don't know how closely Okrand may have looked at it. I'll consider this a questionable data point in favor of *jevwI'.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 7:35 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
Good find with the sonnet, though there's the caveat that Okrand wrote one half and an unidentified Klingonist wrote the other half, and the half without the *jev* seems more likely to be Okrand's work. We don't know how closely Okrand may have looked at it. I'll consider this a questionable data point in favor of *jevwI'.*
I thought the situation with the sonnet was that there were two pieces translated for a wedding (a few lines from King John and Sonnet 116), Okrand did one of the pieces, the Unknown Klingonist did the other, and it's generally believed that Okrand did the sonnet. Is that not the case?
On 9/29/2017 9:19 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
I thought the situation with the sonnet was that there were two pieces translated for a wedding (a few lines from King John and Sonnet 116), Okrand did one of the pieces, the Unknown Klingonist did the other, and it's generally believed that Okrand did the sonnet. Is that not the case?
Here's the original post: http://klingonska.org/canon/search/?file=2012-03-20-email.txt&q=sonnet Looks like Qov believed Marc translated the sonnet, based on the back-translation making *DoD* equal /coordinates./ I'm not sure I follow that explanation, but okay. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 9:28 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
Looks like Qov believed Marc translated the sonnet, based on the back-translation making *DoD* equal *coordinates.* I'm not sure I follow that explanation, but okay.
I don't get the *DoD* thing either. But the way the back-translation of the sonnet is written reminds me a lot of how Okrand wrotes his back-translation of the warrior's anthem: http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/WarriorsAnthem For instance, Okrand's back-translated sentences in the anthem tend to be more complex and verbose, and he uses punctuation at the ends of sentences (unlike the King John back-translation).
On 9/29/2017 12:25 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
Here's a question: Since the implied subject of weather words is usually *muD* (or sometimes maybe *chal* for precipitation and the like), how would you all interpret *vungwI'*? Would you read it as the noun "hurricane", as in the part of the atmosphere that's hurricaning, considered as a single system? (So you could perhaps say something like */Florida/Daq ghoSlI' 'Irma' vungwI'* /"Hurricane Irma is approaching Florida"/, with the assumption that "hurricane" is treated like a rank or title.) Or would it be taken to mean something less specific or useful, like "the atmosphere as a whole, which happens to be hurricaning somewhere", assuming it means anything at all?
Okrand has famously been coy about what the subject of the weather verbs is. Sometimes it's *muD,* but only in the way a meteorologist would explain the science behind it. Generally they're used without subjects—not that they use indefinite subjects, though. You're supposed to "just know" what the subject is. I wouldn't assume that *vungwI'* is the noun form of /hurricane/ any more than I would assume that *SISwI'* is the noun form of /rain./ Instead of trying to turn it into a noun, use it as a subjectless verb. *tugh */Florida/*Daq vung; ghoSlI' */Irma./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (6)
-
Alan Anderson -
Klingon Word of the Day -
mayqel qunenoS -
nIqolay Q -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel