As to whether {yIn} “live” can take an object : (DloraH, 1/2006): [Okrand] signed my KGT {tlhIngan yIn DayIn}. I don't remember now what he said afterwards, but I remember taking it as a hint that this was not completely grammatical but could be said. (Okrand to charghwI', HQ 7.4 [12/1998]): For example, I've used the word {yIn} transitively. "You live a Klingon life." That's perfectly acceptable in Klingon. It's perfectly acceptable in English, too, but it is not obvious from the short definition in the dictionary that that would be an okay thing to do. … but I couldn’t find another example however. WRT to {tIv} “enjoy” : (Lieven 12/12/2013): [Maltz] said he has been asked before about “Merry Christmas” and “Happy New Year”. He thought they were silly things to say (and, of course, there are no traditional Klingon ways to say these things), but he said that if you have to say “Happy New Year”, you could say {DIS chu' yItIv} or {DIS chu' DatIvjaj} or {DIS chu' botIvjaj} or the like. I agree with De’vID that {SIQ} “endure” would seem *le mot juste* : yIn nI' yISIQ 'ej yIchep Live long and prosper! (RT) 'oy' DaSIQjaj May you endure the pain! (PK; a good thing to Klingons) yIn DayajmeH 'oy' yISIQ. To understand life, endure pain. (TKW) QIt ghaHvaD yIn Hegh je vIghojmoH ‘ej ‘oy’ SIQ ghaH And teach him life and death, the slow and painful way! (PB) Finally note the difference between {tu’be’lu’} : 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) and {tu’lu’be’} : SuvwI'pu' qan tu'lu'be' There are no old warriors. (TKW) 'Iw HIq yap tu'lu'be' Sufficient bloodwine does not exist. (qep'a' 2014 Secrecy Proverb) -- Voragh ______________________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol On Behalf Of De'vID On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 at 13:41, <luis.chaparro@web.de<mailto:luis.chaparro@web.de>> wrote: 'ewrop DIvI' 'oHtaH'a' 'ewrop DIvI''e'? [ ... ] poH nI' bov chep wIyInpu' 'ewropngan. As always, I would appreciate any help / correction in order to improve my Klingon. I also have four short questions: 3. Can we put other suffixes between *tu'* and *lu'* when meaning *there is/are* like in *tu'choHlu'pu'*? Yes. {tu'lu'} is just the verb {tu'} plus the suffix {-lu'}, and (if it makes sense) verb suffixes can go in between. The only canon example I found was {QuvlIjDaq tu'be'lu'jaj} which has the rover {-be'} between them. [ … ] Also, I'm not sure that you can {yIn} a {bov chep}. I think {SIQ} is the right word, even though in English "endure" is usually used for negative experiences. Or maybe one could use {tIv}, though I don't know if Klingons would "enjoy" a prosperous era in the meaning of {tIv}.

Am 16.02.2022 um 16:32 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:

...

yIn nI' yISIQ 'ej yIchep Live long and prosper! (RT)

Did 'oqranD write this?

Yes, he did. RT = "Radio Times (Magazine)" See http://klingon.wiki/En/RadioTimes -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com

Thank you very much, De'vID and Voragh, as always for your really helpful replies!

On 2/16/2022 4:10 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:

That's an interesting question. The difference in the canon examples is that -be' follows tu' when -jaj or -'a' is appended. One example happened to be that way, but it doesn't follow that the -jaj or -'a' CAUSED the order of the rover.

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 2/17/2022 10:40 AM, Ed Bailey wrote:

On Wednesday, February 16, 2022, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

One example happened to be that way, but it doesn't follow that the -jaj or -'a' CAUSED the order of the rover.

vay' vIjatlhbe'bogh DaghoH.

Maybe you didn't intend to say that, but it's an obvious interpretation of what you said. "The difference in the canon examples is that -be' follows tu' when -jaj or -'a' is appended." This sounds very much like you're saying that appending *-jaj* or *-'a'* makes the *-be'* move from the *-lu'* to the *tu',* that you're stating a rule "-be' follows tu' when -jaj or -'a' is appended" that leads to the canon examples. I wanted to make it clear that this is /not/ a known rule, just your observation of what order of suffixes happened in these examples. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

I remember an explanation that SuStel made many years ago that while {-be’} is a rover and it negates what it follows, more accurately, it negates EVERYTHING before it, not singularly the suffix or root verb that it follows. In the instance in question back then, it worked to negate the combination of the verb and the adverbial that preceded it. I think this was over “If you don’t eat your vegetables, {batlh bIHeghbe’}” It doesn’t mean “You will honorably not die.” I means “You will not die honorably." So, that pretty much erases that distinction in meaning that you are trying to make between {tu’be’lu’} and {tu’lu’be’}, since “no one observes” and “one does not observe” are pretty much synonymous. In particular, remember that {tu’lu’} does NOT mean “Someone unspecified observes (while someone else does not)”. It’s meaning is much more close to the English “One observes”. {naDev tlhInganpu’ tu’lu’} (and yes, the missing {lu-} is okay with plenty of canon to confirm it) means “There are Klingons here,” or “One observes Klingons here.” It most definitely does NOT mean “Somebody observes Klingons here and I’m not telling you who it is doing the observing, or identifying those who is not doing the observing." So, trying to figure out when it is right to say {tu’lu’be’} and wrong to say {tu’be’lu’} or vise versa is likely to be a frustrating exercise, because it already fundamentally doesn’t mean what you have suggested that it means. This is a thing that is arbitrary. Po-tay-to/Po-tah-to. It would be interesting to see how Okrand would translate “The Undiscovered Country”. As a stylistic thing, I’d probably choose {X tu’lu’be’} to mean that there are no Xs, since {tu’lu’} is pretty much fossilized as “There is an X or there are Xs”, while {tu’be’lu’} breaks the fossilized form, suggesting the more literal translation that one doesn’t observe or discover it, so I’d translate “The Undiscovered Country” as {Sep tu’be’lu’bogh}. There is a country, so {Sep tu’lu’be’bogh} kinda suggests that there isn’t a country, so it doesn’t work as well for a translation, In My Humble Opinion. But that’s just me. I could be totally wrong. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)

On Feb 16, 2022, at 4:10 PM, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:

That's an interesting question. The difference in the canon examples is that -be' follows tu' when -jaj or -'a' is appended. I would expect the difference to be that tu'be'lu' means that someone unspecified does not observe (though someone else might), while tu'lu'be' would mean no one observes, but {yIH tu'be'lu'jaj} doesn't follow this pattern.

cha'DIch, Soj wa'DIch vIqel: Luis, it was all clear to me except for the last sentence, which evidently I am misinterpreting: "Small deeds of all citizens and important thing(s) are responsible."

~mIp'av

On Wednesday, February 16, 2022, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote:

...

yIn nI' yISIQ 'ej yIchep Live long and prosper! (RT)

Did 'oqranD write this?

voragh:

...

Finally note the difference between {tu’be’lu’} : and {tu’lu’be’} :

What's the difference? Is there any conclusion to be made from the Ca'Non examples posted? Because I don't see any difference regarding the when each variation is to be used.

-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ <https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/> Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

On 2/17/2022 4:54 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:

charghwI':

...

As a stylistic thing, I’d probably choose {X tu’lu’be’} to mean that there are no Xs, since {tu’lu’} is pretty much fossilized as “There is an X or there are Xs”, while {tu’be’lu’} breaks the fossilized form, suggesting the more literal translation that one doesn’t observe or discover it, so I’d translate “The Undiscovered Country” as  {Sep tu’be’lu’bogh}. There is a country, so {Sep tu’lu’be’bogh} kinda suggests that there isn’t a country, so it doesn’t work as well for a translation, In My Humble Opinion. Thank you for your interesting contributions. That's a very good question. But then, do you think the combination I used in my text (*tu'choHlu'pu'*), since it *breaks* the *tu'lu'*, would be rather understood with the more literal meaning of *observe, find, discover*? I was trying to render the idea of *there have begun to be* (*they have come into existence*).

I don't think *tu'lu'* should be thought of as an indivisible particle. The *tu'* and the *-lu'* put together tend to have a fixed meaning, but that doesn't mean the combination has been turned into its own unaffixed word. If you want *tu'choHlu'pu'* to mean /there had begun to be,/ that should be fine. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

mIp'av:

cha'DIch, Soj wa'DIch vIqel: Luis, it was all clear to me except for the last sentence, which evidently I am misinterpreting: "Small deeds of all citizens and important thing(s) are responsible."

Thank you for taking the time to read the text! I was actually trying to say: *Each citizen is responsible, small deeds are also important*, using *potlh* as verb and *je* as adverb :-) Maybe I should have used a period instead, in order to avoid this misunderstanding.

In early days, I was complaining because the word glosses didn’t specify whether verbs were transitive or intransitive. English dictionaries do this for a reason. Why not TKD? During the interview, Okrand tended to wince when I pushed to figure out transitivity. SuStel figured this out before I did, with greater clarity. I’m not sure whether as a practical measure to give Okrand more wiggle room for future translations so that a smaller vocabulary could go farther, or whether it was some kind of grammatical principal that he wanted the language to have, but the simple truth is Klingon grammarians don’t think about transitivity like we do. Verbs can take an object or not. Stative/Adjectival/“to be” verbs generally don’t take objects, unless you add {-moH}, and certain verbs tend to be associated with certain objects or with certain types of object, but even then someone could come up with an utterance that works, even though it doesn’t fit the patterns we’ve seen with that specific verb before, blah, blah, blah. So, on one hand, it is better to back off from trying to come up with any general rule defining when verbs can or cannot take objects… except for special verbs which are actually more rigid than their English equivalents, like {vIH}/move, because in English, when I move the pie, the pie moves, but in Klingon, {chab vIvIHmoHDI’, vIH chab}. {vIH} never takes an object, unless you add {-moH}. That’s a special thing you have to learn about {vIH}. Certain verbs require special study, like: vIH ghoS jatlh ja’ Aaaand sometimes these things you have to learn about verbs change, since by the glosses in TKD, the object of {jatlh} was the utterance, while the object of {ja’} was the person you spoke to, but eventually canon made that distinction… less distinct. So, instead of thinking, “I’m looking for the general rule about verbs and objects, and the exceptional verbs that don’t follow those rules,” in Klingon, it is better to think, “I’m going to learn the exceptional verbs that have rules that apply to them in terms of what objects they take or don’t take.” The rest of the verbs? Don’t get too fixated on patterns you may think you see. There are trends, yes, but those trends are not reliable rules. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)

On Feb 16, 2022, at 7:47 PM, DloraH <seruq@bellsouth.net> wrote:

While I may have been quoted as saying that in 2006, the signing took place in the 90's. That's why at the time of that quote I no longer remembered what he had said. So in that second quote, from Okrand to charghwI', where he says he has used it that way, he may likely have been referring to when he signed my KGT... and/or he also used that phrase signing other books.

- DloraH

On Wed, 2022-02-16 at 15:21 +0000, Steven Boozer wrote:

...

As to whether {yIn} “live” can take an object :

(DloraH, 1/2006): [Okrand] signed my KGT {tlhIngan yIn DayIn}. I don't remember now what he said afterwards, but I remember taking it as a hint that this was not completely grammatical but could be said.

(Okrand to charghwI', HQ 7.4 [12/1998]): For example, I've used the word {yIn} transitively. "You live a Klingon life." That's perfectly acceptable in Klingon. It's perfectly acceptable in English, too, but it is not obvious from the short definition in the dictionary that that would be an okay thing to do. … but I couldn’t find another example however. WRT to {tIv} “enjoy” :

(Lieven 12/12/2013): [Maltz] said he has been asked before about “Merry Christmas” and “Happy New Year”. He thought they were silly things to say (and, of course, there are no traditional Klingon ways to say these things), but he said that if you have to say “Happy New Year”, you could say {DIS chu' yItIv} or {DIS chu' DatIvjaj} or {DIS chu' botIvjaj} or the like.

I agree with De’vID that {SIQ} “endure” would seem *le mot juste* :

yIn nI' yISIQ 'ej yIchep Live long and prosper! (RT)

'oy' DaSIQjaj May you endure the pain! (PK; a good thing to Klingons) yIn DayajmeH 'oy' yISIQ. To understand life, endure pain. (TKW)

QIt ghaHvaD yIn Hegh je vIghojmoH ‘ej ‘oy’ SIQ ghaH And teach him life and death, the slow and painful way! (PB) Finally note the difference between {tu’be’lu’} :

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)

and {tu’lu’be’} :

SuvwI'pu' qan tu'lu'be' There are no old warriors. (TKW)

'Iw HIq yap tu'lu'be' Sufficient bloodwine does not exist. (qep'a' 2014 Secrecy Proverb) -- Voragh

______________________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol On Behalf Of De'vID On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 at 13:41, <luis.chaparro@web.de <mailto:luis.chaparro@web.de><mailto:luis.chaparro@web.de <mailto:luis.chaparro@web.de>>> wrote: 'ewrop DIvI' 'oHtaH'a' 'ewrop DIvI''e'? [ ... ] poH nI' bov chep wIyInpu' 'ewropngan.

As always, I would appreciate any help / correction in order to improve my Klingon. I also have four short questions: 3. Can we put other suffixes between *tu'* and *lu'* when meaning *there is/are* like in *tu'choHlu'pu'*?

Yes. {tu'lu'} is just the verb {tu'} plus the suffix {-lu'}, and (if it makes sense) verb suffixes can go in between. The only canon example I found was {QuvlIjDaq tu'be'lu'jaj} which has the rover {- be'} between them. [ … ] Also, I'm not sure that you can {yIn} a {bov chep}. I think {SIQ} is the right word, even though in English "endure" is usually used for negative experiences. Or maybe one could use {tIv}, though I don't know if Klingons would "enjoy" a prosperous era in the meaning of {tIv}. _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org>

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org>