Since we don't know, what exactly a {petaQ} or a {yIntagh} is, I know that probably there's no answer. But I wonder.. How would you pluralize the {petaQ}, {yIntagh}, {toDSaH}, etc ? Would you use {-pu'} or {-mey} ? ~ bara'qa'
Am 27.09.2019 um 13:04 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
How would you pluralize the {petaQ}, {yIntagh}, {toDSaH}, etc ?
Would you use {-pu'} or {-mey} ?
I would use {-pu'} because even when insulting, it's still a being capable of language. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery
On 9/27/2019 7:04 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Since we don't know, what exactly a {petaQ} or a {yIntagh} is, I know that probably there's no answer.
But I wonder..
How would you pluralize the {petaQ}, {yIntagh}, {toDSaH}, etc ?
Would you use {-pu'} or {-mey} ?
/paq'batlh/ has *petaQmey,* referring to people. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Sep 27, 2019, at 07:55, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 9/27/2019 7:04 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote: Since we don't know, what exactly a {petaQ} or a {yIntagh} is, I know that probably there's no answer.
But I wonder..
How would you pluralize the {petaQ}, {yIntagh}, {toDSaH}, etc ?
Would you use {-pu'} or {-mey} ? paq'batlh has petaQmey, referring to people.
But what if they were just scattered all about? Within the context of the paq'batlh verse, I don’t think such a reading is excluded: nItlhejbogh petaQmey tInuD chaHvaD nIb yan wIjwI' jan je (Not saying that a “scattered all about” meaning was indeed intended, just that I don’t think this example is conclusive, so we likely still just don’t know.) The English translation says “Look at these p’takhs at your side” - “at your side” could be interpreted literally (as a small group standing beside you, not scattered) or figuratively (your supporters). In the previous chapter, this happens: ruS cherDI' 'Iw SIqral bIQtIq lughos cha' parmaqqay' pa' ghomta' SuvwI' 'ej pa' loS chaH My reading of the context is that those whom Molor is calling {petaQmey} are the {ghomta'bogh SuvwI'} (pl.). Since they have gathered, they’re clearly not scattered all about as a diaspora throughout the land, but they might still be scattered all about the camp. Do we have any canon clues to suggest how scattered lamguage-capable beings need to be before {-mey} isn’t considered an insult?
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 10:03 AM Hugh Son puqloD <Hugh@qeylis.net> wrote:
My reading of the context is that those whom Molor is calling {petaQmey} are the {ghomta'bogh SuvwI'} (pl.). Since they have gathered, they’re clearly not scattered all about as a diaspora throughout the land, but they might still be scattered all about the camp. Do we have any canon clues to suggest how scattered lamguage-capable beings need to be before {-mey} isn’t considered an insult?
Determining whether or not {-mey} is intended as an insult probably has more to do with context than the physical dimensions involved. That is, assuming that {-mey} can be used as an insult in such a fashion, as opposed to Molor actually just meaning "p'takhs all over the place". (It would make sense, based on how the possessive suffixes work and what happens if you use the wrong one, but we've never had confirmation for sure.)
On 9/27/2019 10:03 AM, Hugh Son puqloD wrote:
On Sep 27, 2019, at 07:55, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
On 9/27/2019 7:04 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Since we don't know, what exactly a {petaQ} or a {yIntagh} is, I know that probably there's no answer.
But I wonder..
How would you pluralize the {petaQ}, {yIntagh}, {toDSaH}, etc ?
Would you use {-pu'} or {-mey} ?
/paq'batlh/ has *petaQmey,* referring to people.
But what if they were just scattered all about? Within the context of the paq'batlh verse, I don’t think such a reading is excluded:
nItlhejbogh petaQmey tInuD chaHvaD nIb yan wIjwI' jan je
There's also zero evidence that the beings referred to are scattered about, and the "assembled warriors" are "at your side," addressing Molor. Impossible to be scattered? No, but not very likely either. Almost any plural could be imagined to be "scattered" if you try hard enough. What this quote doesn't do is prove that you /must/ insult the *petaQ* you're addressing by referring to them as things; it just seems that Molor happens to do so. It seems obvious that insulting someone with *petaQ* might lead you to further insult them by implying they're things instead of people, so saying *petaQmey* instead of *petaQpu'* might be common, but we have no data to support that. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
As far as I know, petaQ is an insult, but the specific meaning has been withheld, probably to make it safe to use in a program for children. As such, we cannot desume that using -mey is an additional insult; as far as we know, a petaQ may be a disgusting animal, or thing, so -mey would be the grammatical correct way to pluralize it. Am I missing something here? Luciano On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 2:47 PM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 9/27/2019 10:03 AM, Hugh Son puqloD wrote:
On Sep 27, 2019, at 07:55, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 9/27/2019 7:04 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Since we don't know, what exactly a {petaQ} or a {yIntagh} is, I know that probably there's no answer.
But I wonder..
How would you pluralize the {petaQ}, {yIntagh}, {toDSaH}, etc ?
Would you use {-pu'} or {-mey} ?
paq'batlh has petaQmey, referring to people.
But what if they were just scattered all about? Within the context of the paq'batlh verse, I don’t think such a reading is excluded:
nItlhejbogh petaQmey tInuD chaHvaD nIb yan wIjwI' jan je
There's also zero evidence that the beings referred to are scattered about, and the "assembled warriors" are "at your side," addressing Molor. Impossible to be scattered? No, but not very likely either. Almost any plural could be imagined to be "scattered" if you try hard enough.
What this quote doesn't do is prove that you must insult the petaQ you're addressing by referring to them as things; it just seems that Molor happens to do so. It seems obvious that insulting someone with petaQ might lead you to further insult them by implying they're things instead of people, so saying petaQmey instead of petaQpu' might be common, but we have no data to support that.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
-- Luciano Montanaro Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. -- Douglas Adams
On 9/27/2019 11:03 AM, Luciano Montanaro wrote:
As far as I know, petaQ is an insult, but the specific meaning has been withheld, probably to make it safe to use in a program for children. As such, we cannot desume that using -mey is an additional insult; as far as we know, a petaQ may be a disgusting animal, or thing, so -mey would be the grammatical correct way to pluralize it. Am I missing something here?
I agree. We just don't have any data on which to speculate. All we know is that in /paq'batlh/ Molor calls a group of assembled Klingons *petaQmey.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I had the same thought as Luciano: {petaQ} may have originally been some sort of disgusting creature or thing, which is why it’s pluralized with {-mey} in the same way that {DeSqIvDu’} “elbows” is also used for V-shaped pot handles (KGT p.97). But as SuStel says, we have no way of knowing. For comparison, more than one animal - even when used to refer to people - is {Ha’DIbaHmey} in the paq’batlh: ghoStaHvIS tam 'ej So' molor QaS HoS ram Ha'DIbaHmey rur They sneak and they creep, The men of mighty Molor, Like beasts in the dark. (PB) DaqtaghlIj yIlel qeylIS ngemvamDaq Ha'DIbaHmey tIHoH wa' targh cha' tlhInganpu'qoq je Kahless, pull your d'k tahg, Kill the beasts in this forest, One a targ, and two who call themselves Klingon. (PB) Note that {Ha’DIbaHmey} refers to two {tlhInganpu’qoq} “so-called Klingons” in the second example. -- Voragh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SuStel On 9/27/2019 11:03 AM, Luciano Montanaro wrote: As far as I know, petaQ is an insult, but the specific meaning has been withheld, probably to make it safe to use in a program for children. As such, we cannot desume that using -mey is an additional insult; as far as we know, a petaQ may be a disgusting animal, or thing, so -mey would be the grammatical correct way to pluralize it. Am I missing something here? I agree. We just don't have any data on which to speculate. All we know is that in paq'batlh Molor calls a group of assembled Klingons petaQmey.
And just to add one more element to the discussion, isn’t {paq’batlh} poetry? We’ve been specifically told that in poetry, the plural suffixes are not bound by normal rules of grammar. Admittedly, that was in reference to the rare, poetic use of {-mey} on body parts, but in TKD, for either beings capable of language or body parts, using {-mey} always refers to the “scattered all about” meaning, either in poetry or normal speech. There’s no reference to it being intentionally used as an insult in TKD or the Addendum. … not that it wouldn’t be insulting… There’s just no mention of it in TKD. We can rationally deduce that it would be insulting to be referred to as a thing incapable of language, but we don’t know that Klingons actually think that way. So far as we can tell, they’d just assume that if you refer to {nuvmey} when you don’t mean “scattered all about”, then maybe you are just an idiot who doesn’t know how to speak Klingon. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Sep 27, 2019, at 11:45 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
I had the same thought as Luciano: {petaQ} may have originally been some sort of disgusting creature or thing, which is why it’s pluralized with {-mey} in the same way that {DeSqIvDu’} “elbows” is also used for V-shaped pot handles (KGT p.97). But as SuStel says, we have no way of knowing.
For comparison, more than one animal - even when used to refer to people - is {Ha’DIbaHmey} in the paq’batlh:
ghoStaHvIS tam 'ej So' molor QaS HoS ram Ha'DIbaHmey rur They sneak and they creep, The men of mighty Molor, Like beasts in the dark. (PB)
DaqtaghlIj yIlel qeylIS ngemvamDaq Ha'DIbaHmey tIHoH wa' targh cha' tlhInganpu'qoq je Kahless, pull your d'k tahg, Kill the beasts in this forest, One a targ, and two who call themselves Klingon. (PB)
Note that {Ha’DIbaHmey} refers to two {tlhInganpu’qoq} “so-called Klingons” in the second example.
-- Voragh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SuStel
On 9/27/2019 11:03 AM, Luciano Montanaro wrote: As far as I know, petaQ is an insult, but the specific meaning has been withheld, probably to make it safe to use in a program for children. As such, we cannot desume that using -mey is an additional insult; as far as we know, a petaQ may be a disgusting animal, or thing, so -mey would be the grammatical correct way to pluralize it. Am I missing something here? I agree. We just don't have any data on which to speculate. All we know is that in paq'batlh Molor calls a group of assembled Klingons petaQmey.
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 9/27/2019 12:42 PM, Will Martin wrote:
And just to add one more element to the discussion, isn’t {paq’batlh} poetry?
We’ve been specifically told that in poetry, the plural suffixes are not bound by normal rules of grammar. Admittedly, that was in reference to the rare, poetic use of {-mey} on body parts, but in TKD, for either beings capable of language or body parts, using {-mey} always refers to the “scattered all about” meaning, either in poetry or normal speech. There’s no reference to it being intentionally used as an insult in TKD or the Addendum.
We're only told that body parts that use *-mey* to mean /scattered all about/ only appear in poetry. The best you can say here is a blanket statement that the whole thing is poetry, and who knows what poetic license the poet took? (And come to think of it, I think it's supposed to be a translation of a translation, not the original poet's exact words.) -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (8)
-
Hugh Son puqloD -
Lieven L. Litaer -
Luciano Montanaro -
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin