I can't understand why some people use {tu'lu'be'} instead of {tu'be'lu'}. Since {be'} is a rover, negating whatever precedes it, and since the intended meaning is "someone doesn't find/observe/notice/discover", then obviously the correct choice is {tu'be'lu'} and not {tu'lu'be'}. The latter, means "not someone unspecified finds/observes/notices/discovers". So, why choose {tu'lu'be'} ? Is it because of some canon, which I'm unaware of, or is it because "everyone's doing it" ? ~ nI'ghma
Please anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I remember this: This question has been asked AND answered before at least once, but I don't have the answer at hand. But I can answer shortly: - There IS a difference between the two. - There are canon examples that show the difference. Am 12.01.2018 um 15:00 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
I can't understand why some people use {tu'lu'be'} instead of {tu'be'lu'}.
Another possible reason is that {tu'lu'} has grown to an expression on its own ("there is") and the {-be'} negates this expression. {tu'lu'be'} It is not the situation that somebody discovers. The situation that somebody discovers is negated. {tu'be'lu'} It is the situation of not discovering. The subject is not defined. It is negated that it discovers, but with indefinites subject. Does that make sense at all? Just tell me if it's more confusing than before :-) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery
I'm afraid it confused me even more. Anyway, if the canon way of expressing the intended meaning is {tu'lu'be'}, then I'm ok with it. But is it canon indeed ? ~ nI'ghma On Jan 12, 2018 4:10 PM, "Lieven L. Litaer" <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Please anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I remember this:
This question has been asked AND answered before at least once, but I don't have the answer at hand. But I can answer shortly:
- There IS a difference between the two. - There are canon examples that show the difference.
Am 12.01.2018 um 15:00 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
I can't understand why some people use {tu'lu'be'} instead of {tu'be'lu'}.
Another possible reason is that {tu'lu'} has grown to an expression on its own ("there is") and the {-be'} negates this expression.
{tu'lu'be'} It is not the situation that somebody discovers. The situation that somebody discovers is negated.
{tu'be'lu'} It is the situation of not discovering. The subject is not defined. It is negated that it discovers, but with indefinites subject.
Does that make sense at all? Just tell me if it's more confusing than before :-)
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 1/12/2018 9:23 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Anyway, if the canon way of expressing the intended meaning is {tu'lu'be'}, then I'm ok with it. But is it canon indeed ?
First off, both *tu'be'lu'* and *tu'lu'be'* are canon. *SuvwI'pu' qan tu'lu'be'. */There are no old warriors. /(TKW) *QuvlIjDaq yIH tu'be'lu'jaj */May your coordinates be free of tribbles./ (PK) Next, canon supports the idea that rovers do not necessarily only affect the immediately preceding element. While this is true sometimes (e.g., the *choHoHvIp* examples in TKD) it is not true always. For instance: *nom yIghoSqu' */Maximum speed!/ (ST5) *-qu'* is intensifying the entire sentence, not just the verb. *Hoch DaSopbe'chugh batlh bIHeghbe' */Eat everything or you will die without honor. /*-be'* is negating the entire main clause, not just the verb. Finally, as Lieven says, *tu'lu'* appears to be a somewhat fixed phrase that doesn't always work as a standard basic sentence. Although *tu'* means /discover,/ *tu'lu'* is often used where no discovery occurs; it merely signifies a thing's presence. In this sense it may be considered an idiom whose formula you simply follow. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
The only two examples of {tu'be'lu'} I'm aware of are: QuvlIjDaq yIH tu'be'lu'jaj May your coordinates be free of tribbles! (PK) vaSvamDaq tuq veng je quvvaD Heghqangbogh SuvwI' tu'be'lu''a' Is there nobody in this hall prepared to die for the honor of your tribe and city? (PB) {tu'lu'be'} is used in all the other examples (and there are many). --Voragh ----------------------------------------Original Message----------------------------------- From: Lieven L. Litaer Please anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I remember this: This question has been asked AND answered before at least once, but I don't have the answer at hand. But I can answer shortly: - There IS a difference between the two. - There are canon examples that show the difference. Am 12.01.2018 um 15:00 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
I can't understand why some people use {tu'lu'be'} instead of {tu'be'lu'}.
Another possible reason is that {tu'lu'} has grown to an expression on its own ("there is") and the {-be'} negates this expression. {tu'lu'be'} It is not the situation that somebody discovers. The situation that somebody discovers is negated. {tu'be'lu'} It is the situation of not discovering. The subject is not defined. It is negated that it discovers, but with indefinites subject. Does that make sense at all? Just tell me if it's more confusing than before :-) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany"
MO sent an email to Qov about this once, confirming that {tu'lu'} is becoming a fixed phrase. You can find the text here: http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/ThereIs In this sense, {tu'be'lu'} is what you get if you're being proper (or pedantic, depending on the listener's attitude towards casual speech constructions), and {tu'lu'be'} is what you get if you conceive of {tu'lu'} as a single fixed unit in its own right, rather than as a combination of verb + suffix. I'm not sure if {-lu'be'} on its own has a well-defined meaning. (One of these days, if I get the opportunity, I'd like to ask about whether {-be'} can be used with various suffixes like {-lu'} and the aspect suffixes, and what those constructions would mean.) On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
The only two examples of {tu'be'lu'} I'm aware of are:
QuvlIjDaq yIH tu'be'lu'jaj May your coordinates be free of tribbles! (PK)
vaSvamDaq tuq veng je quvvaD Heghqangbogh SuvwI' tu'be'lu''a' Is there nobody in this hall prepared to die for the honor of your tribe and city? (PB)
{tu'lu'be'} is used in all the other examples (and there are many).
--Voragh
----------------------------------------Original Message----------------------------------- From: Lieven L. Litaer
Please anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I remember this: This question has been asked AND answered before at least once, but I don't have the answer at hand. But I can answer shortly:
- There IS a difference between the two. - There are canon examples that show the difference.
Am 12.01.2018 um 15:00 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
I can't understand why some people use {tu'lu'be'} instead of {tu'be'lu'}.
Another possible reason is that {tu'lu'} has grown to an expression on its own ("there is") and the {-be'} negates this expression.
{tu'lu'be'} It is not the situation that somebody discovers. The situation that somebody discovers is negated.
{tu'be'lu'} It is the situation of not discovering. The subject is not defined. It is negated that it discovers, but with indefinites subject.
Does that make sense at all? Just tell me if it's more confusing than before :-)
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
To get you started, I found only three examples of {-lu’be’} by Okrand: SuvwI'pu' qan tu'lu'be' There are no old warriors. TKW nge'wI' rurQo' bangna'; SIHlu'be'chu'. parmaq choH pagh teHqu', choH tu'DI' lajDaj. Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds or bends with the remover to remove [“A real lover refuses to be like a remover; (s)he is completely unbent.”] (Shakespeare, Sonnet 116) 'Iw HIq yap tu'lu'be' Sufficient bloodwine does not exist (qep'a' 2014 Secrecy Proverb) and one by our Klingon Teacher from Germany’s “Discovery” Netflix announcement: reH muchmey chu’laH, mevlaH, ’ej chu’qa’laH lo’wI’. malja’ qeSmey, latlh nuQbogh lenmey tu’lu’be’. Members can play, pause and resume watching, all without commercials or commitments. (Lieven: DSC Netflix) --Voragh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nIqolay Q I'm not sure if {-lu'be'} on its own has a well-defined meaning. (One of these days, if I get the opportunity, I'd like to ask about whether {-be'} can be used with various suffixes like {-lu'} and the aspect suffixes, and what those constructions would mean.) On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu<mailto:sboozer@uchicago.edu>> wrote: The only two examples of {tu'be'lu'} I'm aware of are: QuvlIjDaq yIH tu'be'lu'jaj May your coordinates be free of tribbles! (PK) vaSvamDaq tuq veng je quvvaD Heghqangbogh SuvwI' tu'be'lu''a' Is there nobody in this hall prepared to die for the honor of your tribe and city? (PB) {tu'lu'be'} is used in all the other examples (and there are many). --Voragh
Am 12.01.2018 um 17:39 schrieb Steven Boozer:
To get you started, I found only three examples of {-lu’be’} by Okrand:
Not all of these are considered canon or should be treated "with a grain of salt" (I hope that's the right English expression)
SuvwI'pu' qan tu'lu'be' There are no old warriors. TKW
No doubt canon.
[“A real lover refuses to be like a remover; (s)he is completely unbent.”] (Shakespeare, Sonnet 116)
Is this really written by Okrand?
'Iw HIq yap tu'lu'be' Sufficient bloodwine does not exist (qep'a' 2014 Secrecy Proverb)
This was created by Lawrence M. Schoen, and Okrand only chose it from others. That would not count as original by Okrand, but could be accepted as "vetted" by him.
and one by our Klingon Teacher from Germany’s “Discovery” Netflix announcement:
As you mention the creator correctly, this certainly is NOT canon. Okrand din't see any of this text, he only provided few words. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/PortalCanon
Translated and/or vetted by Okrand. Two bits of Shakespeare in Klingon to be used in a wedding were forwarded to this list on 20 March 2012 by Qov: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I got a hold of Scott McCormick, the groom in the wedding ceremony that media outlets recently reported had a King John passage translated for them by Marc Okrand. Scott kindly sent me the text, but there's a wrinkle. When Marc sent Scott the file he noted: "Scott -- Here's what we came up with. (By "we," I mean a friend who's an expert Klingon speaker and I. He did one; I did the other.)" That's right, half of this is canon from the keyboard of Marc Okrand and half of it was done by someone else, presumably looked over by Marc and then sent on. Is it all canon, then? We have the paq'batlh problem again! Each has the English original, the Klingon translation and an English back-translation. <....> King John (Act II, scene ii [Hubert speaks]) "He is the half part of a blessed man, Left to be finished by such as she; And she a fair divided excellence, Whose fullness of perfection lies in him." loD Do' ghaH loDvam'e' 'ach bID loD ghaH loD naQmoHlaH be'vam rurbogh be' neH 'ej naQHa' be'vam povtaHghach quvqu' 'ach be'vam pupqu'moHlaH loDvam neH [This man is a lucky man, but he is a half man Only a woman who resembles this woman can cause the man to be complete And this woman's very honored excellence is not complete But only this man is able to make this woman very perfect ] Sonnet 116 "Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments. Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds, or bends with the remover to remove: Oh, no! It is an ever-fixed mark. That looks on tempests and is never shaken." yab matlh muvchuqghach Sorgh vay' 'e' vIbotjaj. nge'wI' rurQo' bangna'; SIHlu'be'chu'. parmaq choH pagh teHqu', choH tu'DI' lajDaj. ghobe'! qarbejbogh DoDvam qontaH 'u' jevqu'taHvIS muD ral, bejlI' parmaq. Qombe'! nISbe' jevwI', 'ej not ruS baq. [Let me prevent that anything sabotage the mutual joining of loyal minds. A real lover refuses to be like a remover; (s)he is completely unbent. Very true[ly] nothing changes love when its acceptance finds change. No! The universe records these coordinates which are definitely accurate. While the violent atmosphere storms, love still watches. It does not tremble! The storm does not disrupt it, and it never terminates the bond. ] Qov ----------------------------------------Original Message---------------------------------------- From: Lieven L. Litaer Am 12.01.2018 um 17:39 schrieb Steven Boozer:
To get you started, I found only three examples of {-lu’be’} by Okrand: <....> [“A real lover refuses to be like a remover; (s)he is completely unbent.”] (Shakespeare, Sonnet 116)
Is this really written by Okrand?
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Translated and/or vetted by Okrand. Two bits of Shakespeare in Klingon to be used in a wedding were forwarded to this list on 20 March 2012 by Qov:
Qov argued that Sonnet 116 was the poem that Okrand translated: I'm guessing the second one (containing ruS) is Marc's because DoD is back
translated as "coordinates."
An 'expert Klingon speaker' wouldn't have chosen DoD to translate "point in space" or "coordinates" but someone looking up "mark" and finding DoD, then looking up DoD to verify the back translation could easily have done that.
I'm not 100% sure I follow the train of logic there, but maybe Qov is more familiar with MO's style. However, the provided back-translation of Sonnet 116 seems to fit more with MO's style of writing back-translations, based on examples like the one he did for the Warrior's Anthem. (For instance, MO uses more punctuation. The King John back-translation lacks sentence-final punctuation, but both the Warrior's Anthem and Sonnet 116 back-translations use it regularly.) So I'm inclined to agree with Qov's assessment that it's by MO.
participants (5)
-
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunenoS -
nIqolay Q -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel