How would you express "root of a tree" ?
Since {'oQqar} means "root, tuber", does anyone have any ideas on how to express "root of a tree" ? ~ kghkhk
I marrion-webstered "root", and I found: "the part of a plant that grows underground, gets water from the ground, and holds the plant in place" So perhaps one could say: {wutlh Sor 'ay'mey} the underground parts of the tree ~ gjgjgj
The more I think the {wutlh Sor 'ay'mey} the more I like it. In fact I like it as much, as I like the suggestion of ghunchu'wI' of {qul pugh} for "ashes", the suggestion of De'vID {nuch qagh} for "spaghetti", and lieven's {tujchoH qImroq} for spring and {bIrchoH qImroq} for autumn. ~ hkkhhk
On 7/12/2019 11:03 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
The more I think the {wutlh Sor 'ay'mey} the more I like it.
In fact I like it as much, as I like the suggestion of ghunchu'wI' of {qul pugh} for "ashes", the suggestion of De'vID {nuch qagh} for "spaghetti", and lieven's {tujchoH qImroq} for spring and {bIrchoH qImroq} for autumn.
These are good as descriptions and metaphors, but don't mistake them for standard terms. If you go telling us that you had spaghetti for dinner and you call it *nuch qagh,* don't be surprised if someone says, *nuqjatlh?* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
you call it nuch qagh, don't be surprised if someone says, nuqjatlh?
You're right; If one used {nuch qagh} on its own without any prior context, probably it wouldn't be understood. But I think that the qul pugh, tujchoH qImroq, bIrchoH qImroq, and wutlh Sor 'ay'mey, would likely be understood. ~ hkhkgk
Or even *{wutlh bartIq} an “underground branch”? The only plant parts I know of are: Qechjem’a’ trunk (of tree) bartIq branch (of tree) por leaf (of plant) naH fruit, vegetable vIychorgh juice, sap of a plant -- Voragh From: mayqel qunen'oS I marrion-webstered "root", and I found: "the part of a plant that grows underground, gets water from the ground, and holds the plant in place" So perhaps one could say: {wutlh Sor 'ay'mey} the underground parts of the tree
My initial impression was that {‘oQqar} was a food item only, but on re-reading KGT I’ve reconsidered: (KGT 88f.): Let us turn, appropriately briefly, from fauna to flora. Any part of any plant that is eaten may be termed {naH}, usually translated "fruit" or "vegetable." Any nut (a fruit with a hard shell) is called a {naHlet} (literally, "hard fruit"), a thistle (a flower with dangerously sharp leaves) is a {naHjej} (literally, "sharp fruit"), a bean (which, in this case, may mean the pod or the seed or seeds in it or both) is a {qurgh}, and a root or tuber is a {'oQqar}. Otherwise there are no known generic names for different types of {naH} (though there are terms for specific plants and parts of a plant). A plant's sap or juice is called {vIychorgh}. The outer covering of a fruit or vegetable ({yub}, "husk, rind, peel") is always consumed, except in the case of the {naHlet yub} ("nut shell"). So {‘oQar} seems to be the general word for root or tuber, some of which are edible: 'anyan 'oQqar onion (TNK) qe'rot 'oQqar carrot (TNK) patat 'oQqarmey potatoes (TNK) gharlIq 'oQqar garlic (TNK) … just as other parts of plants can be edible or used in cooking: (KGT 94): Experienced cooks will {mIQ} (fry) the {DIghna' por} (*digna* leaf), though this is risky, since if the leaf is heated for too long, it will wilt. (KGT 95): As already pointed out, any drink made of the liquid that circulates through any part of a plant is {vIychorgh} (juice). (KGT 96): If plants or animal parts are dried and, if necessary, chopped up before being steeped in boiling water to produce {Dargh} [tea], this preparation is called {Qenvob}. Often, however, there is no {Qenvob}; the tea is made by simply picking thorns, leaves, petals, or seeds off of a plant and immediately immersing them in the water. So the list of plant parts seems to be: bartIq branch (of tree) ghub bud naH fruit, vegetable por leaf (of plant) Qechjem stem, stalk Qechjem’a’ trunk (of tree) Qenmo' pulp (of a plant) raS'IS seed SanmIr spore Suntay' pollen vIychorgh juice, sap of a plant ‘InSong flower ‘oQqar root, tuber ‘uma petal Have I missed any? -- Voragh From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of nIqolay Q On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 10:42 AM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com<mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote: Since {'oQqar} means "root, tuber", does anyone have any ideas on how to express "root of a tree" ? qatlh <Sor 'oQqar> Dalo'be'? Or perhaps Sor 'oQqar'a', by analogy with Qechjem/Qechjem'a'.
nIqolay Q:
qatlh <Sor 'oQqar> Dalo'be'? Or perhaps Sor 'oQqar'a', by analogy with Qechjem/Qechjem'a'.
I marrion-webstered "tuber", and I came up with: 1 a : a short fleshy usually underground stem bearing minute scale leaves each of which bears a bud in its axil and is potentially able to produce a new plant — compare bulb, corm b : a fleshy root or rhizome resembling a tuber 2 : tuberosity Reading the above, I don't think that {'oQqar} could apply to the roots of a tree. But that's ok, since I *really* like the {wutlh Sor 'ay'mey}. Believe me when I say, I'm gonna {wutlh Sor 'ay'mey} my brains out. ~ hkbjjh
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 3:36 PM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Reading the above, I don't think that {'oQqar} could apply to the roots of a tree.
Why not? The gloss has "root" right in there. Not "root, but only one you can eat". Not "root, but only one from a small plant". Botanically speaking, out of the four examples we know from TNK (*'anyan 'oQqar* "onion", *gharlIq 'oQqar* "garlic", *patat 'oQqarmey* "potatoes", and *qe'rot 'oQqar* "carrot"), only carrots are technically roots, and only potatoes are technically tubers. Garlic and onions are bulbs. (And bulbs and tubers are apparently modified stems. This is all very complicated.) I don't think *'oQqar* is a very botanically-strict term. Based on the glosses "root" and "tuber", and the four examples from Earth vegetables, it seems like the meaning of *'oQqar* is mostly "part of a plant that's underground and maybe you can eat it". There's no reason it couldn't apply to a tree root. But that's ok, since I *really* like the {wutlh Sor 'ay'mey}.
*va, **'Iq mu'meyvetlh!*
nIqolay Q:
Why not? The gloss has "root" right in there. Not "root, but only one you can eat". Not "root, but only one from a small plant".
Initially I thought so too. But then we have the {Haw'} which is given as "flee, get out", where one can't separate the meaning of "flee", from the "getting out", thus being able to use {Haw'} for the getting out of the "simple kind". Perhaps I'm wrong, since I'm not a plant expert, but I think that the {'oQqar} necessily implies the root having an enlargement, like in garlic, onions, etc.. I don't know though.. I may be wrong.. But now it's wayyyy past my bed time.. maj ram. ~ khhkkhkh
On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 at 23:00, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
nIqolay Q:
Why not? The gloss has "root" right in there. Not "root, but only one you can eat". Not "root, but only one from a small plant".
Initially I thought so too.
But then we have the {Haw'} which is given as "flee, get out", where one can't separate the meaning of "flee", from the "getting out", thus being able to use {Haw'} for the getting out of the "simple kind".
I think you're failing to understand that not all definitions which are comma-separated lists work the same way. Some are restrictive while others are expansive. {Haw'} means "get out" in the sense of "flee", rather than the opposite of "get in". That is, the words "flee" is synonymous with one meaning of "get out". The list narrows down the meaning. {ghargh} means "serpent, worm", because Klingons apparently have one word for creates with elongated shapes without limbs. Both serpents and worms typically live on or in the ground, but it wouldn't surprise me if eels were also considered a kind of {ghargh} to Klingons (perhaps {bIQ ghargh}). {'oQqar} means "root, tuber". This seems to indicate that the word refers to the underground part of a plant. But like {ghargh}, it wouldn't surprise me if the edible part of a lotus (i.e., the underwater part) is also {'oQqar} to Klingons. -- De'vID
De'vID:
{'oQqar} means "root, tuber". This seems to indicate that the word refers to the underground part of a plant. But like {ghargh}, it wouldn't surprise me if the edible part of a lotus (i.e., the underwater part) is also {'oQqar} to Klingons.
True, but this is just a speculation on your part, as my interpretation is of course a speculation on my part. Since we don't have a definite answer though, and since the Ca'Non definitions which contain {'oQqar} are with regards to plants such as onions, carrots, etc, I believe it would be quite a stretch to arbitrarily expand its' meaning on every kind of root. De'vID:
I think you're failing to understand that not all definitions which are comma- separated lists work the same way. Some are restrictive while others are expansive.
I understand this just fine. What I don't understand, is absent Ca'Non, who will decide in such cases, what goes for what word. Show me a Ca'Non example of {'oQqar} being used for "simple" roots, and I'll be convinced. ~ kjkbkb
On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 at 10:27, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
I think you're failing to understand that not all definitions which are comma- separated lists work the same way. Some are restrictive while others are expansive.
I understand this just fine.
What I don't understand, is absent Ca'Non, who will decide in such cases, what goes for what word.
You can usually tell by the relationship of the words in the list to one another. {Haw'} v. "flee, get out" is restrictive, because they overlap in meaning, and {Haw'} is in the intersect. There is a meaning of "flee" which isn't covered by "get out" (e.g., "the changing mists on the mountain side flee [vanish] before the blazing morning sun"). There are meanings of "get out" which isn't covered by "flee" (e.g., "she got out [removed, retrieved] her wallet from her pocket"). The other term is there to restrict the meaning. There are cases in which interpreting the list as restrictive is obviously wrong. {beq} n. "crew, crewman" can obviously refer to female crew members. The "crewman" isn't there to restrict the definition to men. It's to clarify that the word refers to a single member of the crew, not to the entire crew. (In Star Trek, especially in TOS, "crewman" seems to be neutral and can refer to either men or women.) Show me a Ca'Non example of {'oQqar} being used for "simple" roots, and
I'll be convinced.
AFAIK, {ghargh} has never been used to mean "serpent" in canon, either. Does that mean you'll never use it that way even if you needed a word for "serpent", until it's used that way in canon? There are a lot of these comma-separated definitions where only one translation has been used in canon. For example, I don't recall {bom} n. "song, chant" ever being used to mean "chant". Then there's {Duj} n. "ship, boat", which has been used in canon for "ship" and "barge" (but I think not "boat"). {lupwI'} n. "jitney, bus" has only ever been translated as "jitney". If you think that {'oQqar} can't mean just "root", what do you think the word "root" is doing there in the definition? Why isn't the definition just "tuber"? -- De'vID
De'vID:
You can usually tell by the relationship of the words in the list to one another. {Haw'} v. "flee, get out" is restrictive, because they overlap in meaning, and {Haw'} is in the intersect. There is a meaning of "flee" which isn't covered by "get out" (e.g., "the changing mists on the mountain side flee [vanish] before the blazing morning sun"). There are meanings of "get out" which isn't covered by "flee" (e.g., "she got out [removed, retrieved] her wallet from her pocket"). The other term is there to restrict the meaning.
This is indeed a nice analysis. De'vID:
AFAIK, {ghargh} has never been used to mean "serpent" in canon, either. Does that mean you'll never use it that way even if you needed a word for "serpent", until it's used that way in canon?
This is something which has troubled me in the past; I've thought of writing about it in this list, but eventually more important questions came up, so I forgot. What I've decided to do, is in case I'm writing something important, I'd say something like {ghargh vIleghpu'; wam rur}. De'vID:
If you think that {'oQqar} can't mean just "root", what do you think the word "root" is doing there in the definition? Why isn't the definition just "tuber"?
I don't know. That's the honest answer. Now, don't misunderstand me. I don't want {'oQqar} to have the restrictrive meaning of "tuber". I never liked the phenomenon of a given word, being excessively narrowed down as far as its meaning is concerned. You presented, strong and valid arguments, and qeylIS knows, I want to believe them. But the problem is that we can't be sure. Thank you though, for taking the time to explain this. You gave me a lot to think about. ~ hjkhjkhkj
Does anyone else on the mailing list have any reservation about using {ghargh} to mean "serpent"? On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 at 11:56, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
AFAIK, {ghargh} has never been used to mean "serpent" in canon, either. Does that mean you'll never use it that way even if you needed a word for "serpent", until it's used that way in canon?
This is something which has troubled me in the past; I've thought of writing about it in this list, but eventually more important questions came up, so I forgot.
What I've decided to do, is in case I'm writing something important, I'd say something like {ghargh vIleghpu'; wam rur}.
Why? What reason is there to believe that the "serpent" in the definition of {ghargh} means anything other than that a serpent would be referred to generically as a {ghargh} in Klingon? -- De'vID
De'vID:
Why? What reason is there to believe that the "serpent" in the definition of {ghargh} means anything other than that a serpent would be referred to generically as a {ghargh} in Klingon?
Let me ask you. If I say {muSujpu' ghargh mIllogh}, what am I saying ? The picture of a serpent disturbed me, or the picture of a worm disturbed me ? Since {ghargh} can mean both, how could someone say that I don't need to specify further ? There is a line in matthew, where jesus says something like (I don't have the original text at hand now): "who of you, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a serpent ?" Suppose I wrote: {‘ej ghotI’ HevmeH wa’ nuv puqloD, tlhobchugh puqvam, puqvamvaD ghargh nob vay’ ?} Can't the reader here assume that the {ghargh} could mean "worm" instead ? Now, don't tell me "it wouldn't make for a big difference in meaning", or "to a klingon it would be the same". Because it would make a *major* difference in meaning, and klingons as well as their understanding of things, can burn in hell for all I care. De'vID:
Does anyone else on the mailing list have any reservation about using {ghargh} to mean "serpent"?
You misunderstood me. I'm not saying {ghargh} can't be used to mean "serpent". I *am* saying though, that since it can mean worm too, one needs to specify what he's talking about. ~ ncnccn
On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 at 23:13, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
Why? What reason is there to believe that the "serpent" in the definition of {ghargh} means anything other than that a serpent would be referred to generically as a {ghargh} in Klingon?
Let me ask you.
If I say {muSujpu' ghargh mIllogh}, what am I saying ?
The picture of a serpent disturbed me, or the picture of a worm disturbed me ?
A picture of a {ghargh} disturbed you.
Since {ghargh} can mean both, how could someone say that I don't need to specify further ?
If you absolutely *had* to distinguish between a serpent and a worm, by all means do so, but it's not strictly necessary in all cases.
There is a line in matthew, where jesus says something like (I don't have the original text at hand now):
"who of you, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a serpent ?"
Suppose I wrote:
{‘ej ghotI’ HevmeH wa’ nuv puqloD, tlhobchugh puqvam, puqvamvaD ghargh nob vay’ ?}
Can't the reader here assume that the {ghargh} could mean "worm" instead ?
This is what footnotes are for. The intent of the question is to ask whether someone would, when asked by someone close (their son) for something beneficial (a fish), they would instead give him something dangerous (a serpent). Since Jesus' audience has many fishermen (St. Peter for example), and come from a culture where serpents are considered evil (because of the story in Genesis), that particular question carries with it certain connotations. When the Bible is introduced into a language/culture where there isn't a positive association between fish and survival, or between snakes and danger, the translators have to use footnotes to explain the cultural relevance of fish and snakes. Even if you had a Klingon word which meant "serpent" exclusively, you'd still have the problem that a Klingon reader might not culturally associate serpents as being something undesirable to give to someone. Perhaps Klingons view serpents and worms the same way, and giving someone {ghargh} (whether serpents or worms) is a good thing. (Everyone loves qagh.) Maybe fish have a negative connotation in Klingon culture (water does, and fish live in water). Jesus' question, when taken literally, might seem completely backwards to a Klingon reader without an explanation of the context. Whether the word you use to translate "serpent" here is {ghargh} or something else, you'd have to explain what it means here. The fact that there isn't a word which means "serpent" but not "worm" therefore doesn't matter. Imagine reading the following: "Who of you, if your son asks for a weak, disgusting water creature, would give him serpents or worms instead, which everyone loves?" The reader assuming that {ghargh} means "worm" and not "serpent" here is the least problematic thing about this interpretation. Now, don't tell me "it wouldn't make for a big difference in meaning", or
"to a klingon it would be the same".
Because it would make a *major* difference in meaning, and klingons as well as their understanding of things, can burn in hell for all I care.
If Klingons can burn in hell for all you care, why are you translating the Bible into Klingon? ;-)
De'vID:
Does anyone else on the mailing list have any reservation about using {ghargh} to mean "serpent"?
You misunderstood me. I'm not saying {ghargh} can't be used to mean "serpent". I *am* saying though, that since it can mean worm too, one needs to specify what he's talking about.
I understood you just fine. I'm wondering whether anyone else thinks it's always necessary to specifically differentiate between serpents and worms. -- De'vID
On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 5:13 PM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
If I say {muSujpu' ghargh mIllogh}, what am I saying ?
The picture of a serpent disturbed me, or the picture of a worm disturbed me ?
Since {ghargh} can mean both, how could someone say that I don't need to specify further ?
Probably something like "The picture of a long thin wriggly animal with no legs disturbed me." This would include pictures of serpents, worms, and caterpillars. (*'ughDuq ghargh* was given as a translation for "caterpillar".) It would probably also include a number of other things with a similar body shape, like caecilians, eels, leeches, nematodes, gagh, and Shai-Hulud (*juStaHvIS qo' Say'qu'moHjaj*).
There is a line in matthew, where jesus says something like (I don't have the original text at hand now):
"who of you, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a serpent ?"
Suppose I wrote:
{‘ej ghotI’ HevmeH wa’ nuv puqloD, tlhobchugh puqvam, puqvamvaD ghargh nob vay’ ?}
Can't the reader here assume that the {ghargh} could mean "worm" instead ?
Now, don't tell me "it wouldn't make for a big difference in meaning", or "to a klingon it would be the same".
Because it would make a *major* difference in meaning, and klingons as well as their understanding of things, can burn in hell for all I care.
What kind of fish is Jesus talking about? What kind of snake? The word "snake" or "serpent" can apply to harmless snakes and to very dangerous ones. Some snakes can be eaten, some can't. The precise snake in question could have an important effect on the meaning of the proverb, but the translations don't specify. In context, it's clear that the specific kind of snake isn't what's important. What's important is the idea of 1) not giving someone what they asked for and 2) giving them something probably useless and possibly even dangerous instead. Whether you give your son the kind of *ghargh* that has scales and big fangs, or the kind of *ghargh* that's tiny, has no eyes, and eats dirt, either way, you're not giving him a *ghotI'*. Having said all that, if you still want to make sure that the reader knows that giving your son a snake instead of a fish is a *petaQ tonSaw'*, *ghargh Qob* "dangerous legless-wiggly-thing" might work. (Actually, given Klingon cuisine, the whole parable might need to be rewritten. A lunch that can fight back would probably be considered quite invigorating.)
ghargh’a’ Sent from my iPhone. Will
On Jul 13, 2019, at 6:22 PM, nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 5:13 PM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote: If I say {muSujpu' ghargh mIllogh}, what am I saying ?
The picture of a serpent disturbed me, or the picture of a worm disturbed me ?
Since {ghargh} can mean both, how could someone say that I don't need to specify further ?
Probably something like "The picture of a long thin wriggly animal with no legs disturbed me." This would include pictures of serpents, worms, and caterpillars. ('ughDuq ghargh was given as a translation for "caterpillar".) It would probably also include a number of other things with a similar body shape, like caecilians, eels, leeches, nematodes, gagh, and Shai-Hulud (juStaHvIS qo' Say'qu'moHjaj).
There is a line in matthew, where jesus says something like (I don't have the original text at hand now):
"who of you, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a serpent ?"
Suppose I wrote:
{‘ej ghotI’ HevmeH wa’ nuv puqloD, tlhobchugh puqvam, puqvamvaD ghargh nob vay’ ?}
Can't the reader here assume that the {ghargh} could mean "worm" instead ?
Now, don't tell me "it wouldn't make for a big difference in meaning", or "to a klingon it would be the same".
Because it would make a *major* difference in meaning, and klingons as well as their understanding of things, can burn in hell for all I care.
What kind of fish is Jesus talking about? What kind of snake? The word "snake" or "serpent" can apply to harmless snakes and to very dangerous ones. Some snakes can be eaten, some can't. The precise snake in question could have an important effect on the meaning of the proverb, but the translations don't specify. In context, it's clear that the specific kind of snake isn't what's important. What's important is the idea of 1) not giving someone what they asked for and 2) giving them something probably useless and possibly even dangerous instead. Whether you give your son the kind of ghargh that has scales and big fangs, or the kind of ghargh that's tiny, has no eyes, and eats dirt, either way, you're not giving him a ghotI'.
Having said all that, if you still want to make sure that the reader knows that giving your son a snake instead of a fish is a petaQ tonSaw', ghargh Qob "dangerous legless-wiggly-thing" might work.
(Actually, given Klingon cuisine, the whole parable might need to be rewritten. A lunch that can fight back would probably be considered quite invigorating.)
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
De'vID:
If Klingons can burn in hell for all you care, why are you translating the Bible into Klingon? ;-)
bel vISIQmeH, 'ej tlhIngan Hol vIqeqmeH, mab'a' chu' vImughlI'. In order to have fun, and in order to practice the language. pa'logh, naDev tlhIngan Hol vIlo'taHvIS, motlh jang pagh; vaj chay' vIqeqlaH ? while I used to write here in klingon, usually noone replied. So, how am I supposed to practice ? ngaghqangbe'lu'chugh 'InSep QanwI' tuQbe'lu', 'ej wa' Hol lo'qangbe'lu'chugh Holvam ghojbe'lu', jay'. someone doesn't wear a rubber unless he's willing to frack, and he doesn't learn a language unless he's willing to use it. De'vID:
Even if you had a Klingon word which meant "serpent" exclusively, you'd still have the problem that a Klingon reader might not culturally associate serpents as being something undesirable to give to someone.
pe'vIl, tlhInganpu' lungaghlu'jaj. pe'vIl, tlhIngan Sa'HutDu' lungaghlu'jaj. frak the klingons. yav QemjIq lu'elmeH, luH'eghjaj 'ej pa' Heghjaj. may they drag themselves to a hole and the ground, and rid us from their presence. 'ej meqvammo', 'Internet DaqwIj tlhInDaq jIghItlhta': and because of this reason, I've written at my web page: "It is not a translation corrupting the original text, by expressing events “as a klingon would see them" Human jIH, 'ej Humanpu'vaD ghItlhvam vImughlI'. I'm human, who's writing for humans. charghwI':
ghargh’a’
I don't think this solves the problem. ghargh'a' could be something greater than a worm, but still being classified in the "worm" category of beings. ~ kjhjkkhj
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 10:25, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
If Klingons can burn in hell for all you care, why are you translating the Bible into Klingon? ;-)
bel vISIQmeH, 'ej tlhIngan Hol vIqeqmeH, mab'a' chu' vImughlI'. In order to have fun, and in order to practice the language.
maj.
pa'logh, naDev tlhIngan Hol vIlo'taHvIS, motlh jang pagh; vaj chay' vIqeqlaH ? while I used to write here in klingon, usually noone replied. So, how am I supposed to practice ?
motlh taQqu'mo' QInmeylIj 'ej ghaytan nuvpu' maw, nIjangbe' latlh.
ngaghqangbe'lu'chugh 'InSep QanwI' tuQbe'lu', 'ej wa' Hol lo'qangbe'lu'chugh Holvam ghojbe'lu', jay'. someone doesn't wear a rubber unless he's willing to frack, and he doesn't learn a language unless he's willing to use it.
qay' QInvam. bIyaj'a'? -- De'vID
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 3:50 PM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 10:25, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
pa'logh, naDev tlhIngan Hol vIlo'taHvIS, motlh jang pagh; vaj chay'
vIqeqlaH ? while I used to write here in klingon, usually noone replied. So, how am I supposed to practice ?
motlh taQqu'mo' QInmeylIj 'ej ghaytan nuvpu' maw, nIjangbe' latlh.
rut Dal Soj qelbogh QIn. Sith vISaHbe'. Qongbogh vIghro' vISaHbe'. jIghaqlaHbe'mo' jIjangbe' jIH. motlh taQ. taQtaHghach vItungHa'moH vIneHbe'mo' jIjangbe' jIH. qen QutchoHpu'. QutwI' vIje'moHbe'meH jIjangbe' jIH. 'ej Dajanglu'pu'DI', pIj jangwI' DaqImQo'. mu' lo' Dayaj DaneHba', 'a jatlhta'be'chugh Marc Okrand, qeS Dalajqangbe'. juvuvbe'law' 'ej roD vuDlIj neH DaSaHlaw'. bI'Ijbe'taHchugh, qatlh poHmaj wInatlhqangnIS?
ngaghqangbe'lu'chugh 'InSep QanwI' tuQbe'lu', 'ej wa' Hol
lo'qangbe'lu'chugh Holvam ghojbe'lu', jay'. someone doesn't wear a rubber unless he's willing to frack, and he doesn't learn a language unless he's willing to use it.
qay' QInvam. bIyaj'a'?
lugh De'vID. -- ghunchu'wI'
On Jul 14, 2019, at 03:25, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
pa'logh, naDev tlhIngan Hol vIlo'taHvIS, motlh jang pagh; vaj chay' vIqeqlaH ?
qeqmeH vay', jangnISbe'lu'. jIqeq vIneHDI', rut naDev 'op mu' vIghItlh. rut vIjanglu'; rut vIjangbe'lu'. rut TwitterDaq 'op mu' vIghItlh. pa' mujangwI'pu' law' law' naDev mujangwI'pu' law' puS. rut DiscordDaq 'op mu' vIghItlh. pa' mujangwI'pu' law' law' TwitterDaq mujangwI'pu' law' puS. 'ach vabDot DiscordDaq rut mujang pagh. muSujbe' wanI'. vIjanglu' 'e' vIpoQbe'. 'ej rut jIqeqmeH 'op mu' vIghItlh, 'ej paghvaD vIbon. mu'meywIj vIbonbe'DI' mujangba' pagh. 'a mu'mey vIbonbe'bogh vIghItlhtaH, vIghItlh 'e' vItIvmo', 'ej qeqmeH QaQ mIwvam. rut HaSta tamey vIqon 'ej YouTubeDaq bIH vIbon. rut wab tamey vIqon 'ej SoundCloudDaq bIH vIbon. HaSta tamey wab tamey je vIqon, mubelmoHmo' Hoch tlhIngan Hol qeqmeH 'eb. HaSta tameywIj bej nuvpu' puSqu'. wab tameywIj 'Ij nuvpu' puSqu'. pIjHa' QInHom ghItlh vay'. jISaHbe'chu' jay'. vIqon jIqeq vIneHmo'. bejchugh qoj 'Ijchugh pagh, qay'be'. vIqontaH. mumevmoHlaH pagh. jIqeqmeH, HaSta tameywIj bejnIS pagh. wab tameywIj 'IjnIS pagh. ghItlhmeywIj laDnIS pagh. 'ej vIjangnISbe'qu'lu'. vIjanglu'DI', vIjanglu' 'e' vItIvba', 'a vIjangbe'lu'DI' qay'be'qu'. wa' ben, QIn tetlhvamDaq jIjeSchoHtaHvIS, tlhIngan Hol vIlo'taHDI', jItlhobtaH; jIjatlhtaH: «qay'chugh pabwIj mu' vIwIvbogh joq, HISovmoH! jIqeq vIneH 'ej tlhIngan Hol laHwIj vIDub vIneH.» 'ej ngugh taghwI'na' jIHtaHvIS rut muQaHtaH 'op nuv. SuStel, ghunchu'wI', QeS, latlh je vItlho'qu', muQaHqu'taHmo'. 'ach motlh, mujangtaH pagh. ghaytan Qagh puS ngaS QInwIj 'e' vIpIH, 'a motlh QaghmeywIj mutu'moHtaH pagh. vIjangbe'lu'mo' jIqeqlaHbe''a'? laHwIj vIDublaHbe''a'? ghobe'! jIqeqtaH 'ej jIqeqtaHmo' laHwIj vIDubmoHlaHpu'. tlhn;lblp (tlhoy nI'; laDbe'lu'pu'): vaj yIqeqtaH, yIruch! 'a bIqeqDI' reH latlhpu' DavuQqu' 'e' yIpIHQo'.
ghunchu'wI' De'vID je, first: the phenomenon of noone actually using klingon on this list, has been described by other people too, starting decades ago. charghwI' and krankor have talked about it, from times I wasn't even here. So, go pin elsewhere, the why-noone-writes/replies-in klingon. second: In real life, real people often curse and use offensive phrases, and if klingon is to be used as a real language, it needs to be used that way too. If this is a problem for you, then perhaps you should move to a planet where people do nothing else, than wear klingon t-shirts and sing all day "may gowron lead the empire". third: ghunchu'wi' you wrote, that I don't accept the advice of others. You're wrong. If it concerns grammar, then I *do* accept it. But I will not accept, a personal opinion, e.g on transliterating, just because someone wants to behave as my personal boss. Unless 'oqranD retires, and the community selects a successor/successors in his place, I have no obligation of accepting the choices/personal opinions of others. So, they'll have to satisfy their ego elsewhere. ********** the above in klingon: ghunchu'wI' De'vID je, wa'DIch: maH DIS law' ret, wa' QIn tetlhvam wanI' luDelpu' 'op nuv. naDev tlhIngan Hol lulo' nuv puSqu'. wanI'vam luDellpu' charghwI' krankor je. 'ej ngugh naDev jIjeSbe'. vaj wanI'vam boQIj boneHchugh, nuv pImDaq pIch yIlan. cha'DIch: qaStaHvIS yInna', mu'qaDmey bach nuvpu', 'ej Qutbogh mu'tlheghmey lo'. Holna' oHchugh tlhIngan Hol'e', vaj wanI'vam chIwnIS je. thlIHvaD qay'chugh, vaj lalth yuQ yIDabchoH. pa', tlhIngan wepmey tuQtaH nuvpu', 'ej bomtaH: wo' DevtaHjaj ghawran. wejDIch: latlhpu' qeS vIlajbe'. bIghItlhpu' ghunchu'wI', 'a bImuj. pab luboptaHvIS mu'meychaj, qeSchaj vIlaj. 'ach vuDmey tlhIn (ghantoH: tlhIngan ngutlhmey qa'meH) vIlajnISbe', 'ej vIpabQo'. pIn'a'pu'wI' luDa 'op nuvpu', 'ach pIn'a'pu'wI' chaHbe'bej. 'utlhwI' mojchugh 'oqranD, 'ej cho'wI' cho'wI'pu' joq lajchugh nugh, vaj paQDI'norghDaj paQDI'norghchaj joq vIlaj. qaSpu'pa' wanI'vam, pagh vuD tlhIn vIlajnIS. vaj, jaS chabalchaj nguq chavnIS 'op nuv. ~ hjkhkj
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 09:10, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
In real life, real people often curse and use offensive phrases, and if klingon is to be used as a real language, it needs to be used that way too. If this is a problem for you, then perhaps you should move to a planet where people do nothing else, than wear klingon t-shirts and sing all day "may gowron lead the empire".
qaStaHvIS yInna', mu'qaDmey bach nuvpu', 'ej Qutbogh mu'tlheghmey lo'. Holna' oHchugh tlhIngan Hol'e', vaj wanI'vam chIwnIS je. thlIHvaD qay'chugh, vaj lalth yuQ yIDabchoH. pa', tlhIngan wepmey tuQtaH nuvpu', 'ej bomtaH: wo' DevtaHjaj ghawran.
qaStaHvIS yIn, mu'qaD bachmeH mIt 'op ghu'mey 'ej mItbe' op' ghu'mey. naDev «qorDu' mawbe'bogh Daq» ("family-friendly environment") 'oH QIn tetlhvam'e'. motlh mItbe' Hol Qut. qen QIn tetlhvam "FAQ" ghItlhHomvam vIngeHpu': --- begin quote --- <Here are some examples of inappropriate posts which will result in your immediate removal from the list: * Posts with vulgar, offending language...> (KLI mailing list FAQ, 'ay' 1.2.5) --- end quote --- chutvam bIvbej QIn Daqonpu'bogh: «ngaghqangbe'lu'chugh 'InSep QanwI' tuQbe'lu'...». (*motlh* mItbe' Hol Qut, 'e' vIja'ta'. porghQeD rIchlu'DI', chaq mIt «ngaghqangbe'lu'chugh 'InSep QanwI' tuQbe'lu'...», 'ach DaH porghQeD wIrIchtaHbe'.) -- De'vID
De'vID: -- begin quote --- <Here are some examples of inappropriate posts which will result in your immediate removal from the list: * Posts with vulgar, offending language...> (KLI mailing list FAQ, 'ay' 1.2.5) --- end quote --- SuStelvaD mu'meyvam nIb DaghItlhqa'pu'. QIn tetlhvam mejlu'; tlhoy 'e' Dajallaw'. You've written this for SuStel too. It seems, you have a secret desire for someone leaving. jIH:
ngaghqangbe'lu'chugh 'InSep QanwI' tuQbe'lu'...
tlhIngan Hol mu'tlhegh 'oHlaw' mu'tlheghvam'e'. 'ej pagh HIvbej. 'ej naDev, tlhIngan Hol lo'taHvIS vay', Hoch luboplaH mu'meyDaj. chutmey Dapojbogh Davuvqang'a' ? wa'DIch, chutmey tIchoH, 'ej ghIq jIHeQ. It seems that this sentence is in klingon, and it certainly doesn't attack anyone. Also, here, while someone uses klingon, he can write about anything. Are you able to respect the rules, which you recite ? First, change the rules, and *then* I'll change the way I write. 'ej qatlh Qut ? mu'meyvam vItlhobtaHvIS, Qel tlhach mu'mey vItlhob. muj yajlaw'ghachlIj. and why is the sentence "vulgar" ? While I was requesting the words {'InSep, qey'Hav, etc}, I was requesting medical terminology. Its your understanding which is flawed. ~ hjkhjkjhk
jIH:
and why is the sentence "vulgar" ? While I was requesting the words {'InSep, qey'Hav, etc}, I was requesting medical terminology. Its your understanding which is flawed.
mu'tlhegh naQ 'oH: The whole sentence was: {ngaghqangbe'lu'chugh 'InSep QanwI' tuQbe'lu', 'ej wa' Hol lo'qangbe'lu'chugh Holvam ghojbe'lu', jay'} Qutbogh pagh mu'mey ngaS mu'tlheghvam. 'ej {jay'} chIw mughchu'ghachDaj. This sentence contains no words which are vulgar. And the translation is in-keeping with the {jay'}. ~ jjkljkljk
'a. Dunbej.. but this is great indeed.. qey'Hav, 'InSep, latlh mu'mey rap je vIneHtaHvIS, qay'be'. 'ach, naDev mu'meyvam lo'lu'chugh, vaj qay'qu'bej.. while I was requesting words for "vagina", "penis", etc, there wasn't a problem. But if someone uses these words here, then it becomes a problem. 'ach, pImqu'bej ghu' qay'.. but the problem is actually very different.. naDev, tornISlu', 'ej reH Qochbe'nISlu'. qay' ghu'vam'e'. ~ hkjhkjhkj
vaj, tlhIngan Hol lo'taHvIS vay', Hoch lubop mu'meyDaj, 'ach mu'meyvamvaD DIvI Hol mojmoH, vaj qay'.. So, while here someone uses klingon, he can write anything. But if he translates it to english, then it becomes a problem. ghu'vam qangtlhIn lughalbej *scribe*pu' *pharisee*pu je. Even the scribes and pharisees would be jealous of this philosophy.. ~ jgkgkg
On Jul 15, 2019, at 05:21, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
qey'Hav, 'InSep, latlh mu'mey rap je vIneHtaHvIS, qay'be'. 'ach, naDev mu'meyvam lo'lu'chugh, vaj qay'qu'bej..
mu'meyvam lo'laH vay', Qutbe'taHvIS. ghantoH: * qey'Hav 'ar ghaj tlhIngan? * yIttaHvIS martaq Qang raS ngeQpu'. rIQ 'InSepDaj. * 'oy' 'InSepwIj turmIq vIvujtaHvIS. * puqlI' DaboghmoHpu'DI', qey'HavlIj veghpu''a' pagh DuSIjpu''a' HaqwI'? 'a Qutlaw' lo'lIj lurIchbogh De'vID ghunchu'wI' je.
imdb yIpoj. check imdb. frack mu' lo'taH battlestar galactica, 'ej tv-14 'oH patlhDaj.. battlestar galactica, used continuously the word "frack", and it was appropriate for audiences over the age of 14.. vaj, 'o qeylIS ! frack mu' vIjatlhpu' ! so, oh qeylIS ! I said the frack word ! naDev, 'op puq tu'lu', 'ej wa'maH loS DIS ben boghpu'be ! I offended the other children here, who're under 14 years old ! 'ej safe sex mu'mey QoytaHvIS 'op nuvpu', ngugh qaS lot ! 'InSep QanwI'mey qelnISmo'.. vaj, teenager ghaHtaHvIS nuv'e', not aids junmeH ghojmoHlu'.. And because the idea of a condom is offensive, no teenager should be taught about safe sex.. wejpuH.. pathetic.. ~ gkgkkg
On Jul 15, 2019, at 06:47, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
'ej safe sex mu'mey QoytaHvIS 'op nuvpu', ngugh qaS lot ! 'InSep QanwI'mey qelnISmo'..
wejHa' jatlhlu', 'a chaq jatlhqa'nISlu': qay'be' mu'mey. qay' lo'chaj. rut mIt mu'meyvam: ropchoHlu' qoj bong yatlhchoHlu' net botmeH vay' ghojmoHlu' mItbej. 'a pagh ghojmoH QInvam. bIghItlhpu'; bIjatlhpu':
qaStaHvIS yInna', mu'qaDmey bach nuvpu', 'ej Qutbogh mu'tlheghmey lo'.
qaStaHvIS yInna'wIj, QInmey law'qu' vIlaD. tlhIngan Hol ngaS QInmey puSqu' vIlaDbogh. mu'qaD ngaS QInmey puSqu' vIlaDbogh. Hol Qut ngaS QInmey puSqu' vIlaDbogh. 'a naDev mu'qaD, Hol Qut je ngaS QInmey law' DaghItlhbogh. uSujqu'be' wanI', 'a vay' Suj 'e' vIjallaHchu'. vabDot nenpu'wI' mawlaH. chaq SoHvaD motlhchu' mu'qaD, Hol Qut je 'ej SujawtaHvIS SoH juppu'lI' je roD pe'vIl mu'qaD SubachtaH 'ej qay'be'. 'a ghot DaSovbe'bogh DaqIHDI', pIj Hol Qut Dalo''a'? 'Iv chaH QIn tetlhvam vInDa'pu''e'? chaH DaSovchu''a'? Sep tlhab vIDab. Hoch meq vIneHbogh vIrIchlaH net chaw'. 'a veH tu'lu'. vay' vImorgh vIneHchugh 'echletDaq mu'tlhegh vIghItlhlaH 'ej 'echletvam vI'aghlaH tawDaq jIyIttaHvIS 'ej jIjachqu'taHvIS. 'a mawbogh Hol Qut ngaSchugh mu'tlheghwIj, vIqoplu'chugh vImerbe'qu'lu'. vaj «Hoch» rIchlu' net chaw' tlhIngan Hol lo'lu'taHvIS 'e' maqchugh chutmey, 'ej Hol Qutmo' vay' vujlaH loHwI' 'e' maqchugh je, *Hochna''e'* rIchlu' net chaw'be'law'. Hoch meq rIchlu' net chaw'. Qutlu' net tuch. meqmeylIj Dangu'bogh rIchlaH vay', Qutbe'taHvIS. Qutbe' porgh 'ay'Du' porghQeD mu'tay' je. Qutbe' ngaghmeH mIw, ngaghmeH QanwI' mu'tay' je. 'a QutlaHbej mu'tay'vam ngaSbogh mu'tlhegh'e'. «Qut 'ej mawlaH QInlIj» jatlhDI' vay', ghaytan Qut 'ej mawlaH. maw pagh mawbe' QIn 'e' noHbe' QIn qonwI'. noH QIn laDwI'. qamaw 'e' vIHechbe', 'a Dumaw QInwIj 'e' DaHarbejchugh, vaj Dumaw. qamaw 'ej qamawqa'chugh 'ej jImev 'e' Datlhobchugh 'a chaballIj vIqImHa'chugh, vaj mun loHwI' 'e' DatlhoblaH 'ej jIqay' pagh jIqay'be' 'e' noHlaH loHwI'. qay' QInmeylIj Dajatlhchugh nuvpu' vaj chaq qeSchaj DaqelnIS. Qapbe' nugh Hoch ta''e' neHbogh ta'chugh Hoch ghot. vaj majIjqangnISqu'.
Hugh, Dubopbe' QInwIj Qav. Hugh, my last message wasn't directed at you. DaH, Hoch vIghItlhnISta' vIghItlhpu'. pagh latlh ngoD vIghItlhqang. 'roD, op nuvpu'mo', poHwIj vIlo'Ha', 'ej DaH mevbej ghu'vam. qaqbogh Doch law' vIta'nIS, vaj DaH rIn. I've written everything I needed to, so there's no point, in continuing this. I'm done, wasting my time because of certain people. It's over. qaStaHvIS QIn tlheghvam, pagh ngoDvaD pagh nuvvaD je jIjang. jIjatlh rIntaH. I won't continue replying for nothing and for noone, in this thread. I'm done. ~ cnnvnv
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 13:47, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
imdb yIpoj. check imdb.
frack mu' lo'taH battlestar galactica, 'ej tv-14 'oH patlhDaj..
battlestar galactica, used continuously the word "frack", and it was appropriate for audiences over the age of 14..
chIch DayajHa'ba'taH. jIjatlhqa': Qutbe' mu'mey. Qut lo'lIj. «ngagh» DamughmeH "frack" DaghItlhDI', mu' Qut DaHechbogh Sovlu'chu'. In English so it's clear: what's vulgar isn't the words themselves. It's your usage. How many times in Battlestar Galactica does someone use the word "frack" to refer to actual sexual intercourse, suddenly and completely out of context in a situation where they're talking about something completely unrelated? The issue isn't the *word* {ngagh} or the *word* "frack": the issue is that you're using the word *as a vulgarity*.
vaj, 'o qeylIS ! frack mu' vIjatlhpu' ! so, oh qeylIS ! I said the frack word !
naDev, 'op puq tu'lu', 'ej wa'maH loS DIS ben boghpu'be ! I offended the other children here, who're under 14 years old !
I started studying Klingon as a teenager, though I think I only joined the mailing list later. But there are, in fact, younger people who may read this mailing list. How many people read this mailing list, see hostile or vulgar messages, and decide not to participate because they don't want to interact with what they see? I'm not singling you out: as you said, I also pointed out the section of the FAQ about vulgar language to SuStel. The rule about vulgarity is there for a reason: to maintain the list as a welcoming environment for the largest number of people. I think the list has at least a few lurkers, who would participate more if there were fewer arguments and other off-putting behaviour from list members. 'ej safe sex mu'mey QoytaHvIS 'op nuvpu', ngugh qaS lot ! 'InSep QanwI'mey
qelnISmo'..
vaj, teenager ghaHtaHvIS nuv'e', not aids junmeH ghojmoHlu'..
And because the idea of a condom is offensive, no teenager should be taught about safe sex..
If you want to write a post about safe sex, and use {ngagh}, {qey'Hav}, {'InSep}, and so on, in a clinical, medical way, as one would write an information pamphlet directed at teenagers, I promise you no one will tell you that it's vulgar. (In fact, I challenge you to write such a post.) If you want to complain about something in Klingon, and pepper your Klingon text with swear words, I promise you no one will tell you that it's inappropriate for this mailing list, even if you provide an English translation where the Klingon swear words are translated as "frack" in the manner of Battlestar Galactica. The *words themselves* are not why your posts are vulgar. wejpuH..
pathetic..
wejpuH indeed. You're clearly deliberately pretending to misunderstand. -- De'vID
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 11:56, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID: -- begin quote --- <Here are some examples of inappropriate posts which will result in your immediate removal from the list: * Posts with vulgar, offending language...> (KLI mailing list FAQ, 'ay' 1.2.5) --- end quote ---
SuStelvaD mu'meyvam nIb DaghItlhqa'pu'. QIn tetlhvam mejlu'; tlhoy 'e' Dajallaw'.
You've written this for SuStel too. It seems, you have a secret desire for someone leaving.
chutmey lupablu' neH vIneH jay'.
jIH:
ngaghqangbe'lu'chugh 'InSep QanwI' tuQbe'lu'...
tlhIngan Hol mu'tlhegh 'oHlaw' mu'tlheghvam'e'. 'ej pagh HIvbej. 'ej naDev, tlhIngan Hol lo'taHvIS vay', Hoch luboplaH mu'meyDaj. chutmey Dapojbogh Davuvqang'a' ? wa'DIch, chutmey tIchoH, 'ej ghIq jIHeQ.
It seems that this sentence is in klingon, and it certainly doesn't attack anyone. Also, here, while someone uses klingon, he can write about anything.
Are you able to respect the rules, which you recite ? First, change the rules, and *then* I'll change the way I write.
bIlughbe'. chutmey DayajHa'law'. chutmey bIv Qutbogh QIn 'ej mawbogh, vabDot tlhIngan Hol lo' QIn. mItbe' 'e' chovlaH loHwI'. 'ej qatlh Qut ? mu'meyvam vItlhobtaHvIS, Qel tlhach mu'mey vItlhob.
muj yajlaw'ghachlIj.
and why is the sentence "vulgar" ? While I was requesting the words {'InSep, qey'Hav, etc}, I was requesting medical terminology. Its your understanding which is flawed.
Qutbe' mu'mey. Qut lo'lIj. «ngagh» DamughmeH "frack" DaghItlhDI', mu' Qut DaHechbogh Sovlu'chu'. -- De'vID
participants (8)
-
Alan Anderson -
Daniel Dadap -
De'vID -
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin