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 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 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).