Klingon Word of the Day: 'aSya'
Klingon Word of the Day for Thursday, July 13, 2017 Klingon word: 'aSya' Part of speech: noun Definition: Asia Source: qepHom 2016 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh@kli.org).
Klingon Word of the Day for Thursday, July 13, 2017
Klingon word: 'aSya' Part of speech: noun Definition: Asia Source: qepHom 2016
We don't have a word for continent although I once found *{Hatlh'a'} used on the KLI's web site. naHQun also suggested *{bIQpuH'a'} - as well as *{bIQpuH} "island". (KGT 16): The Klingon Homeworld {Qo'noS}, usually rendered Kronos in Federation Standard, is a planet with basically one very large mass of land surrounded by ocean; perhaps continent is a comparable concept.
From qepHom 2016, the other Terran continents are:
'amerI'qa' 'ev chan 'ev North America 'amerI'qa' tIng chan tIng South America 'antartIq Antarctica 'aSralya' Australia 'ewrop Europe ... and let's not forget the Indian sub-continent: barat India (TNK) -- Voragh tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a' Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
naHQun also suggested *{bIQpuH'a'} - as well as *{bIQpuH} "island"
Shouldn't this preferably be {bIQ puH} instead of {bIQpuH} ? qunnoq On 13 Jul 2017 6:15 pm, "Steven Boozer" <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Klingon Word of the Day for Thursday, July 13, 2017
Klingon word: 'aSya' Part of speech: noun Definition: Asia Source: qepHom 2016
We don't have a word for continent although I once found *{Hatlh'a'} used on the KLI's web site. naHQun also suggested *{bIQpuH'a'} - as well as *{bIQpuH} "island".
(KGT 16): The Klingon Homeworld {Qo'noS}, usually rendered Kronos in Federation Standard, is a planet with basically one very large mass of land surrounded by ocean; perhaps continent is a comparable concept.
From qepHom 2016, the other Terran continents are:
'amerI'qa' 'ev chan 'ev North America 'amerI'qa' tIng chan tIng South America
'antartIq Antarctica
'aSralya' Australia
'ewrop Europe
... and let's not forget the Indian sub-continent:
barat India (TNK)
-- Voragh tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a' Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:25 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
naHQun also suggested *{bIQpuH'a'} - as well as *{bIQpuH} "island"
Shouldn't this preferably be {bIQ puH} instead of {bIQpuH} ?
MO tends to lean towards using noun-noun phrases rather than compound nouns but IIRC he's said that it's not a big deal to prefer one way over the other (or something to that effect, at least).
So we can glue two nouns together ? On 13 Jul 2017 7:24 pm, "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:25 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
naHQun also suggested *{bIQpuH'a'} - as well as *{bIQpuH} "island"
Shouldn't this preferably be {bIQ puH} instead of {bIQpuH} ?
MO tends to lean towards using noun-noun phrases rather than compound nouns but IIRC he's said that it's not a big deal to prefer one way over the other (or something to that effect, at least).
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:33 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
So we can glue two nouns together ?
The common practice is to keep nouns separate unless they are glossed as a single word. That way new students don't try to look them up. To me {bIQ puH} sounds more like Atlantis after it went under the sea, or a theme park of some sort! :D Both continent and island are words that have been asked for, so soon these suggestions may be overrided by offical canon anyway. :D qurgh
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:33 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com
<mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote:
So we can glue two nouns together ?
Am 13.07.2017 um 19:25 schrieb qurgh lungqIj:
The common practice is to keep nouns separate [...]
Am 13.07.2017 um 19:45 schrieb SuStel:
No. Your question is exactly why we have to be careful when telling people that Okrand said it wasn't a big deal.
Indeed, all of the above is correct, and I won't contradict. Just for the record, I want to add that this is something that we have agreed on, just because it makes it easier for beginners (and others) to read the words. This is one of the situations of TKD that leaves different interpretations and has lead to long discussions in the past: some say that TKD only explains compound nouns, others see it as a guideline how to "make" compound words. The three lines in TKD are really not much, and after all, it really doesn't matter, so Okrand is right that we shouldn't bother too much about that. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Noun
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:33 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com
<mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote:
So we can glue two nouns together ?
Am 13.07.2017 um 19:25 schrieb qurgh lungqIj:
The common practice is to keep nouns separate [...]
Am 13.07.2017 um 19:45 schrieb SuStel:
No. Your question is exactly why we have to be careful when telling people that Okrand said it wasn't a big deal.
Indeed, all of the above is correct, and I won't contradict.
Just for the record, I want to add that this is something that we have agreed on, just because it makes it easier for beginners (and others) to read the words. This is one of the situations of TKD that leaves different interpretations and has lead to long discussions in the past: some say that TKD only explains compound nouns, others see it as a guideline how to "make" compound words. The three lines in TKD are really not much, and after all, it really doesn't matter, so Okrand is right that we shouldn't bother too much about that.
I still think coining new compound words is acceptable, but I do understand the value of not confusing beginners, so I'll stay off the topic from now on.
On 7/13/2017 4:12 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de <mailto:levinius@gmx.de>> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:33 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>
<mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>>> wrote:
So we can glue two nouns together ?
Am 13.07.2017 um 19:25 schrieb qurgh lungqIj:
The common practice is to keep nouns separate [...]
Am 13.07.2017 um 19:45 schrieb SuStel: > No. Your question is exactly why we have to be careful when telling > people that Okrand said it wasn't a big deal.
Indeed, all of the above is correct, and I won't contradict.
Just for the record, I want to add that this is something that we have agreed on, just because it makes it easier for beginners (and others) to read the words. This is one of the situations of TKD that leaves different interpretations and has lead to long discussions in the past: some say that TKD only explains compound nouns, others see it as a guideline how to "make" compound words. The three lines in TKD are really not much, and after all, it really doesn't matter, so Okrand is right that we shouldn't bother too much about that.
I still think coining new compound words is acceptable, but I do understand the value of not confusing beginners, so I'll stay off the topic from now on.
I'll just point out a little tidbit. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other. When working on /Star Trek V,/ Okrand had written the line *vaj toDDujDaj ngeHbej DIvI'*/That means the Federation will be sending its own rescue ship./ But during production Klaa says the line twice, and the second time it's supposed to mean /Shooting space garbage is no test of a warrior's mettle./ We get the text of this line later in /The Klingon Way:/ *vaj toDuj Daj ngeHbej DI vI'* (literally, /cosmos rubble marksmanship inconclusively tests warriorhood courage/). Here, Okrand went out of his way to separate *DI* and *vI',* obviously to say /look out! these aren't what you think they are./ But Klaa pronounces them exactly the same as *DIvI'*/Federation./ And if he were really interested in pushing together words, he's probably have gone with *ngeHbejDI vI'* for /cosmos//-rubble marksmanship./ But he didn't. He kept separate words as separate words. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Last month, the German government has decided to allow the same sex marriage. This means that a man can marry a man, and a woman can marry a woman. We have the Klingon verbs {Saw} for the man and {nay} for what the wife does. I wanted to twitter about that in Klingon, and wondered if {Sawchuq} would make sense. I contacted Marc Okrand, who talked to Maltz about that, and instead of just saying "yes", Maltz provided some more interesting details, including the verb {tlhogh}. The entire message is archived here: http://www.qephom.de/e/message_from_maltz_170713.html ---begin--- Lieven – I had a talk with Maltz about this, and he had more to say about it than I would have guessed! First of all, he said that {Sawchuq} and {naychuq} are perfectly good words and would be understood to refer to same-sex marriage. But he went on... Though {Saw} and {nay} are defined in terms of male/female and when used in this way everything is fine, the idea is not simply that when men get married they do something that's somehow different from what women do when they get married. The concept is more of a yin-yang thing. That is, there are two people joining together in marriage who are not the same as each other. They complement each other, complete each other – all that kind of stuff people say at weddings. It all goes back to the relationship Kahless and Lukara had. So one of the people getting married brings one set of values, strengths, abilities, etc., to the marriage, and the other brings another (complementary, overlapping, enhancing) set. And vice versa. That's why, when they get married, they're not said to do the same thing. Now, you may say, if using two words for "marry" is because there are two different but complementary partners, shouldn't the word for "marry" when both people getting married are the same gender also be two different words? If so, {Sawchuq} and {naychuq} don't accomplish that. And, if you said all of that, you would be right. But the association of {Saw} with "husband" and {nay} with "wife" has been around for so long, the "complementariness" notion has been lost for many people. That's why {Sawchuq} and {naychuq} are easily understandable when used for same-sex marriage. In addition, though, at least in some places, people are dealing with gender in a way that goes beyond simple "male" and "female." So if one of the people getting married doesn't identify as either "male" or "female" – or if both don't - then what do you do? Theoretically, both use {nay} or both use {Saw} or one uses {nay} and the other uses {Saw}, but how to choose and which is which? This is particularly tricky because these two words are tangled up with "female" and "male," exactly what those identifying as neither are wanting to not express. Maltz says that, more and more, he's hearing an older word, {tlhogh}. (I don't know how he's hearing this – my basement isn't really equipped for extraterrestrial communication – but I certainly believe him.) The noun {tlhogh} is quite common. It means "marriage," and it can be used for anybody marrying anybody. The verb {tlhogh}, however, was long considered quaint or archaic. But it's being used with increased frequency. It means "marry" and, like its noun counterpart, it can be used by both partners regardless of sex/gender, so it's used for male-male marriages, female-female marriages, and everything else. Use of this word lacks the yin-yang connotation of {Saw} and {nay}, but it's well suited for expressing what the folks getting married are up to. Depending on what you want to say, both {tlhogh} and {tlhoghchuq} are heard: {B tlhogh A} "A marries B"; {tlhoghchuq A B je} "A and B marry each other." But some Klingons also say {Sawchuq} and {naychuq}. The choice seems to be whatever the folks getting married prefer. I hope this helps. See you soon. – Marc ----end of file---- -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
2017 On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Last month, the German government has decided to allow the same sex marriage. This means that a man can marry a man, and a woman can marry a woman. We have the Klingon verbs {Saw} for the man and {nay} for what the wife does. I wanted to twitter about that in Klingon, and wondered if {Sawchuq} would make sense. I contacted Marc Okrand, who talked to Maltz about that, and instead of just saying "yes", Maltz provided some more interesting details, including the verb {tlhogh}.
The entire message is archived here: http://www.qephom.de/e/message_from_maltz_170713.html
---begin---
Lieven –
I had a talk with Maltz about this, and he had more to say about it than I would have guessed!
First of all, he said that {Sawchuq} and {naychuq} are perfectly good words and would be understood to refer to same-sex marriage.
But he went on...
Though {Saw} and {nay} are defined in terms of male/female and when used in this way everything is fine, the idea is not simply that when men get married they do something that's somehow different from what women do when they get married. The concept is more of a yin-yang thing. That is, there are two people joining together in marriage who are not the same as each other. They complement each other, complete each other – all that kind of stuff people say at weddings. It all goes back to the relationship Kahless and Lukara had. So one of the people getting married brings one set of values, strengths, abilities, etc., to the marriage, and the other brings another (complementary, overlapping, enhancing) set. And vice versa. That's why, when they get married, they're not said to do the same thing.
Now, you may say, if using two words for "marry" is because there are two different but complementary partners, shouldn't the word for "marry" when both people getting married are the same gender also be two different words? If so, {Sawchuq} and {naychuq} don't accomplish that.
And, if you said all of that, you would be right. But the association of {Saw} with "husband" and {nay} with "wife" has been around for so long, the "complementariness" notion has been lost for many people. That's why {Sawchuq} and {naychuq} are easily understandable when used for same-sex marriage.
In addition, though, at least in some places, people are dealing with gender in a way that goes beyond simple "male" and "female." So if one of the people getting married doesn't identify as either "male" or "female" – or if both don't - then what do you do? Theoretically, both use {nay} or both use {Saw} or one uses {nay} and the other uses {Saw}, but how to choose and which is which? This is particularly tricky because these two words are tangled up with "female" and "male," exactly what those identifying as neither are wanting to not express.
Maltz says that, more and more, he's hearing an older word, {tlhogh}. (I don't know how he's hearing this – my basement isn't really equipped for extraterrestrial communication – but I certainly believe him.) The noun {tlhogh} is quite common. It means "marriage," and it can be used for anybody marrying anybody. The verb {tlhogh}, however, was long considered quaint or archaic. But it's being used with increased frequency. It means "marry" and, like its noun counterpart, it can be used by both partners regardless of sex/gender, so it's used for male-male marriages, female-female marriages, and everything else. Use of this word lacks the yin-yang connotation of {Saw} and {nay}, but it's well suited for expressing what the folks getting married are up to. Depending on what you want to say, both {tlhogh} and {tlhoghchuq} are heard: {B tlhogh A} "A marries B"; {tlhoghchuq A B je} "A and B marry each other." But some Klingons also say {Sawchuq} and {naychuq}. The choice seems to be whatever the folks getting married prefer.
I hope this helps.
See you soon.
– Marc ----end of file----
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
thanks for the lesson in heteronormativity Maltz/Marc but we didn't need you to explain it to us On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Rebecca Krause < rebecca.krause.1985@gmail.com> wrote:
2017
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Last month, the German government has decided to allow the same sex marriage. This means that a man can marry a man, and a woman can marry a woman. We have the Klingon verbs {Saw} for the man and {nay} for what the wife does. I wanted to twitter about that in Klingon, and wondered if {Sawchuq} would make sense. I contacted Marc Okrand, who talked to Maltz about that, and instead of just saying "yes", Maltz provided some more interesting details, including the verb {tlhogh}.
The entire message is archived here: http://www.qephom.de/e/message_from_maltz_170713.html
---begin---
Lieven –
I had a talk with Maltz about this, and he had more to say about it than I would have guessed!
First of all, he said that {Sawchuq} and {naychuq} are perfectly good words and would be understood to refer to same-sex marriage.
But he went on...
Though {Saw} and {nay} are defined in terms of male/female and when used in this way everything is fine, the idea is not simply that when men get married they do something that's somehow different from what women do when they get married. The concept is more of a yin-yang thing. That is, there are two people joining together in marriage who are not the same as each other. They complement each other, complete each other – all that kind of stuff people say at weddings. It all goes back to the relationship Kahless and Lukara had. So one of the people getting married brings one set of values, strengths, abilities, etc., to the marriage, and the other brings another (complementary, overlapping, enhancing) set. And vice versa. That's why, when they get married, they're not said to do the same thing.
Now, you may say, if using two words for "marry" is because there are two different but complementary partners, shouldn't the word for "marry" when both people getting married are the same gender also be two different words? If so, {Sawchuq} and {naychuq} don't accomplish that.
And, if you said all of that, you would be right. But the association of {Saw} with "husband" and {nay} with "wife" has been around for so long, the "complementariness" notion has been lost for many people. That's why {Sawchuq} and {naychuq} are easily understandable when used for same-sex marriage.
In addition, though, at least in some places, people are dealing with gender in a way that goes beyond simple "male" and "female." So if one of the people getting married doesn't identify as either "male" or "female" – or if both don't - then what do you do? Theoretically, both use {nay} or both use {Saw} or one uses {nay} and the other uses {Saw}, but how to choose and which is which? This is particularly tricky because these two words are tangled up with "female" and "male," exactly what those identifying as neither are wanting to not express.
Maltz says that, more and more, he's hearing an older word, {tlhogh}. (I don't know how he's hearing this – my basement isn't really equipped for extraterrestrial communication – but I certainly believe him.) The noun {tlhogh} is quite common. It means "marriage," and it can be used for anybody marrying anybody. The verb {tlhogh}, however, was long considered quaint or archaic. But it's being used with increased frequency. It means "marry" and, like its noun counterpart, it can be used by both partners regardless of sex/gender, so it's used for male-male marriages, female-female marriages, and everything else. Use of this word lacks the yin-yang connotation of {Saw} and {nay}, but it's well suited for expressing what the folks getting married are up to. Depending on what you want to say, both {tlhogh} and {tlhoghchuq} are heard: {B tlhogh A} "A marries B"; {tlhoghchuq A B je} "A and B marry each other." But some Klingons also say {Sawchuq} and {naychuq}. The choice seems to be whatever the folks getting married prefer.
I hope this helps.
See you soon.
– Marc ----end of file----
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
The norms of this group include certain shared understandings, such as the idea that all known Klingon has been relayed to us from Maltz via Marc Okrand, or that Captain Krankor speaks no English and Rich Yampell speaks no Klingon. We have a lot of fun living within these shared understandings. Lieven relayed to us Maltz's statement about Klingon culture and language usage. That is how the statement should be viewed according to the norms of this group. Please keep within their spirit. -be''etlh On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Rebecca Krause < rebecca.krause.1985@gmail.com> wrote:
thanks for the lesson in heteronormativity Maltz/Marc but we didn't need you to explain it to us
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Rebecca Krause < rebecca.krause.1985@gmail.com> wrote:
2017
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Last month, the German government has decided to allow the same sex marriage. This means that a man can marry a man, and a woman can marry a woman. We have the Klingon verbs {Saw} for the man and {nay} for what the wife does. I wanted to twitter about that in Klingon, and wondered if {Sawchuq} would make sense. I contacted Marc Okrand, who talked to Maltz about that, and instead of just saying "yes", Maltz provided some more interesting details, including the verb {tlhogh}.
The entire message is archived here: http://www.qephom.de/e/message_from_maltz_170713.html
---begin---
Lieven –
I had a talk with Maltz about this, and he had more to say about it than I would have guessed!
First of all, he said that {Sawchuq} and {naychuq} are perfectly good words and would be understood to refer to same-sex marriage.
But he went on...
Though {Saw} and {nay} are defined in terms of male/female and when used in this way everything is fine, the idea is not simply that when men get married they do something that's somehow different from what women do when they get married. The concept is more of a yin-yang thing. That is, there are two people joining together in marriage who are not the same as each other. They complement each other, complete each other – all that kind of stuff people say at weddings. It all goes back to the relationship Kahless and Lukara had. So one of the people getting married brings one set of values, strengths, abilities, etc., to the marriage, and the other brings another (complementary, overlapping, enhancing) set. And vice versa. That's why, when they get married, they're not said to do the same thing.
Now, you may say, if using two words for "marry" is because there are two different but complementary partners, shouldn't the word for "marry" when both people getting married are the same gender also be two different words? If so, {Sawchuq} and {naychuq} don't accomplish that.
And, if you said all of that, you would be right. But the association of {Saw} with "husband" and {nay} with "wife" has been around for so long, the "complementariness" notion has been lost for many people. That's why {Sawchuq} and {naychuq} are easily understandable when used for same-sex marriage.
In addition, though, at least in some places, people are dealing with gender in a way that goes beyond simple "male" and "female." So if one of the people getting married doesn't identify as either "male" or "female" – or if both don't - then what do you do? Theoretically, both use {nay} or both use {Saw} or one uses {nay} and the other uses {Saw}, but how to choose and which is which? This is particularly tricky because these two words are tangled up with "female" and "male," exactly what those identifying as neither are wanting to not express.
Maltz says that, more and more, he's hearing an older word, {tlhogh}. (I don't know how he's hearing this – my basement isn't really equipped for extraterrestrial communication – but I certainly believe him.) The noun {tlhogh} is quite common. It means "marriage," and it can be used for anybody marrying anybody. The verb {tlhogh}, however, was long considered quaint or archaic. But it's being used with increased frequency. It means "marry" and, like its noun counterpart, it can be used by both partners regardless of sex/gender, so it's used for male-male marriages, female-female marriages, and everything else. Use of this word lacks the yin-yang connotation of {Saw} and {nay}, but it's well suited for expressing what the folks getting married are up to. Depending on what you want to say, both {tlhogh} and {tlhoghchuq} are heard: {B tlhogh A} "A marries B"; {tlhoghchuq A B je} "A and B marry each other." But some Klingons also say {Sawchuq} and {naychuq}. The choice seems to be whatever the folks getting married prefer.
I hope this helps.
See you soon.
– Marc ----end of file----
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
mu'meylIj leghlaHbe' ghaH. tetlhvam mejpu'. qurgh On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Elizabeth Faber < elizabeth.lawrence08@gmail.com> wrote:
The norms of this group include certain shared understandings, such as the idea that all known Klingon has been relayed to us from Maltz via Marc Okrand, or that Captain Krankor speaks no English and Rich Yampell speaks no Klingon. We have a lot of fun living within these shared understandings. Lieven relayed to us Maltz's statement about Klingon culture and language usage. That is how the statement should be viewed according to the norms of this group. Please keep within their spirit.
-be''etlh
I especially like that we have an example of a word that is considered both "quaint" and "archaic." -- Dr. Lawrence M. Schoen
My only experience with gender problem in describing marriage, is in a scenario where all marriage is normal man-to-woman, {Sawchuqpu'wI'pu' puqloD ghaHbe'} for "he is not a son of people who had married each other" intended to mean "he is illegitimate", in describing briefly a legal dispute over inheritance of land, in a short story that I wrote, which is now at http://www.appleyard.flagonsrealm.com/startrek/They_have_been_here_before.ht...
Am 14.07.2017 um 06:46 schrieb Anthony Appleyard:
My only experience with gender problem in describing marriage, is in a scenario where all marriage is normal man-to-woman, {Sawchuqpu'wI'pu' puqloD ghaHbe'} for "he is not a son of people who had married each other"
From Okrand's latest description, I still read the verb {Saw} as a verb related to what a husband does, so I see a gay couple marriage in your lines. "he is not a son of HUSBANDS who had married each other" For a man-to-woman marriage, I'd use the verb {tlhoghchuq} to be sure - even though that word is gender-less. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
Can {tlhogh} be a verb? I have it listed only as a noun. ----Original message----
From : levinius@gmx.de Date : 14/07/2017 - 09:16 (GMTST) To : tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject : Re: [tlhIngan Hol] same sex marriage
From Okrand's latest description, I still read the verb {Saw} as a verb related to what a husband does, so I see a gay couple marriage in your lines. "he is not a son of HUSBANDS who had married each other" For a man-to-woman marriage, I'd use the verb {tlhoghchuq} to be sure - even though that word is gender-less. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Anthony Appleyard:
Can {tlhogh} be a verb? I have it listed only as a noun.
It is now, or rather, it is again. Think of it like the old-fashioned verb "wed" in English. From Lieven's message yesterday: Maltz says that, more and more, he's hearing an older word, {tlhogh}. ... The noun {tlhogh} is quite common. It means "marriage," and it can be used for anybody marrying anybody. The verb {tlhogh}, however, was long considered quaint or archaic. Which is why only the noun was listed in TKD. Apparently it's making a comeback or, rather, it will be making a comeback (in the 24th century). To quote Chief O'Brien, "I hate temporal mechanics!" <g> -- Voragh
Am 14.07.2017 um 11:51 schrieb Anthony Appleyard:
Can {tlhogh} be a verb? I have it listed only as a noun.
You have obviously not read the latest message from Maltz, where he introduces the verb usage of that word. :-D The entire message is archived here: http://www.qephom.de/e/message_from_maltz_170713.html -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Maltz
Am 14.07.2017 um 02:04 schrieb qurgh lungqIj:
mu'meylIj leghlaHbe' ghaH. tetlhvam mejpu'.
De'vetlh chu'mo' tetlhvam mejta'chugh, vaj potlhbe' ghaH. If she quit the list for this reason, it's not a big loss. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Elizabeth Faber wrote:
shared understandings. Lieven relayed to us Maltz's statement about Klingon culture and language usage. That is how the statement should be viewed according to the norms of this group. Please keep within their spirit.
I'm not sure how you interpret her problem, I see that she sees a problem with "heteronormativity" - which is absolutley not the core of the message. If Maltz had said "Klingons have no same-sex marriage" I would understand her anger, but just leaving the list without giving anyone a chance to explain is a quite childish reaction. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Maltz
On 14 Jul 2017 10:12 am, "Lieven" <levinius@gmx.de> wrote: On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Elizabeth Faber wrote:
shared understandings. Lieven relayed to us Maltz's statement about Klingon culture and language usage. That is how the statement should be viewed according to the norms of this group. Please keep within their spirit.
I'm not sure how you interpret her problem, I see that she sees a problem with "heteronormativity" - which is absolutley not the core of the message. If Maltz had said "Klingons have no same-sex marriage" I would understand her anger, but just leaving the list without giving anyone a chance to explain is a quite childish reaction. The subject of this thread is a very emotional one for some people. When I translated some phrases for Stonewall a few years ago, I thought about asking Marc Okrand but decided against it, because I didn't want to put him in the position of having to proclaim what Klingons thought about same-sex marriage. If you recall the TNG episode "The Outcast", there are Star Trek races who oppose certain combinations of sex/gender relationships. There's no reason why Klingons couldn't be generally opposed to same-sex marriage. After all, Klingons, Romulans, Ferengis, Vulcans, etc., are supposed to have exaggerated versions of Humans values and vices, to be used as a mirror for reflection. Of course, since Klingons are popular with fans, that direction would've been controversial. But the other direction also has the potential to offend other people for various reasons. Consider the situation with slavery or the death penalty. We know Klingons have those. That's one thing. But it's another to ask Maltz/Marc to elaborate on how Klingons view slavery or the death penalty. Some people are going to naturally react very strongly to those topics. I know some people who can't go near the "Orion slave auctions" they have at some cons, and it's not "childish". It's genuinely painful for them. -- De'vID
On 14 Jul 2017 10:12 am, "Lieven" wrote:
I'm not sure how you interpret her problem, I see that she sees a problem with "heteronormativity" - which is absolutley not the core of the message.
As I wrote before, I'm not even sure what the problem was in Rebecca's first complaint. I wasn't sure what she wanted, it seemed to me she didn't read the mesage entirely. Am 15.07.2017 um 11:15 schrieb De'vID:
The subject of this thread is a very emotional one for some people.
That's true. I had always thought that people who learn Klingon (most of them) are Star Trek fans and are open minded for everything, but I have been proven wrong with this multiple times lately. I even had somebody in my FB-friends list who has invited to a Star Trek meeting talking about the vulcan "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations" and on the same day posted an absolute xenophobic and racist message.
I translated some phrases for Stonewall a few years ago, I thought about asking Marc Okrand but decided against it, because I didn't want to put him in the position of having to proclaim what Klingons thought about same-sex marriage.
He did answer in a very neutral point of view, not saying what Klingons think about it, only how they would talk about it.
values and vices, to be used as a mirror for reflection. Of course, since Klingons are popular with fans, that direction would've been controversial. But the other direction also has the potential to offend other people for various reasons.
That's true. Following this, as Klingons are very traditional and oldfashioned sometimes, I'm sure the would reject equal gender marriage or probably not even talk about it. But I don't want to open that can of pandora here. Peace. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On 17 July 2017 at 09:40, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
On 14 Jul 2017 10:12 am, "Lieven" wrote:
I'm not sure how you interpret her problem, I see that she sees a problem with "heteronormativity" - which is absolutley not the core of the message.
As I wrote before, I'm not even sure what the problem was in Rebecca's first complaint. I wasn't sure what she wanted, it seemed to me she didn't read the mesage entirely.
QIn naQ laDba'pu'. ghaH maw bertlham'e'. -- De'vID
Am 17.07.2017 um 10:40 schrieb De'vID:
QIn naQ laDba'pu'. ghaH maw bertlham'e'.
pa' mawbogh 'ay' vIghovbe'. chaq Hol neH vIbuSmo' vIleghbe', chaq mumawbe'mo' De', mawwI' vIleghbe'. HIchuH. (chaq jIHvaD neH QIn yIngeH 'ej DIvI' Hol yIlo') -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
I'm sad that Rebecca has left the group because they perceived this message from Maltz to be a lecture about Klingon heteronormativity. I can see how the message might seem that way: indeed, Maltz/Marc has given us information about historical Klingon views on the subject of marriage which (as has been shown above in this thread) match some heteronormative views that some earthlings have held and do hold. My take away from the message is that Marc O is doing a great job of grounding some new terms in a sense of history--as he is generally so good at doing! Yes, MO tells us some information about a complimentarian, heteronormative viewpoint on Qo'noS... but *then* he goes on to show how those viewpoints are being expanded, forgotten, disregarded, or upended by novel uses of Saw/nay and tlhogh. Personally I find this much more interesting than what could have just been some new words, randomly generated, for the topics. So, as a gay and sometimes gender non-conforming Klingon speaker, I read this as MO very thoughtfully responding to requests from within the community for expanded terminology. I also happen to know (as he stated publically at last qep'a') that he is working on vocabulary regarding gender non-conformity and intersex individuals among other things. In fact I'd like to highlight how, at the time, MO stated that he had not rushed to produce those words before qep'a' cha'maH wejDIch because he wanted to approach the topics with care and clarity. I hope that with the context I've just described people will read this message from Maltz as I do: positively. 'arHa -- Socialist Alternative <http://www.socialistalternative.org/> Klingon Language Institute <http://www.kli.org/> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 17.07.2017 um 10:40 schrieb De'vID:
QIn naQ laDba'pu'. ghaH maw bertlham'e'.
pa' mawbogh 'ay' vIghovbe'. chaq Hol neH vIbuSmo' vIleghbe', chaq mumawbe'mo' De', mawwI' vIleghbe'. HIchuH. (chaq jIHvaD neH QIn yIngeH 'ej DIvI' Hol yIlo')
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Am 17.07.2017 um 22:21 schrieb John R. Harness:
I'm sad that Rebecca has left the group because they perceived this message from Maltz to be a lecture about Klingon heteronormativity.
That's one point, but I am sad that she didn't even want to give us a chance to talk about it.
My take away from the message is that Marc O is doing a great job of [...] viewpoint on Qo'noS... but *then* he goes on to show how those viewpoints are being expanded, forgotten, disregarded, or upended by novel uses of Saw/nay and tlhogh.
That's how I saw it as well, and I think he did a very careful and neutral approach, trying to satisfy everyone.
I hope that with the context I've just described people will read this message from Maltz as I do: positively.
I hope so as well. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.qephom.de/e/message_from_maltz_170713.html
Am 15.07.2017 um 01:20 schrieb De'vID:
QIn tetlhvam mej nuvpu', QInvam vIlaDDI' 'e' vISov.
matlh QInmo' tetlhvam mej vay' vaj potlhbe' ghaH. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On 13 July 2017 at 22:07, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Though {Saw} and {nay} are defined in terms of male/female and when used in this way everything is fine, the idea is not simply that when men get married they do something that's somehow different from what women do when they get married. The concept is more of a yin-yang thing.
It's funny that he mentions yin-yang, because what he describes with {Saw}, {nay}, and {tlhogh} parallels the development in Chinese. https://www.mdbg.net/chinese/dictionary?page=worddict&wdrst=1&wdqb=娶 "to take a wife / to marry (a woman)" [ = {Saw} ] https://www.mdbg.net/chinese/dictionary?page=worddict&wdrst=1&wdqb=嫁 "(of a woman) to marry / to marry off a daughter / to shift (blame etc)" [ = {nay} ] (Aside: Yes, the Chinese verb used of a woman for marrying really does have a secondary meaning which means to shift shame onto someone else. Make of that what you will.) https://www.mdbg.net/chinese/dictionary?page=worddict&wdrst=1&wdqb=婚 "to marry / marriage / wedding / to take a wife" [ = {tlhogh} ] As a noun, 婚 means "marriage" or "wedding". As a verb, the archaic meaning is to "take a wife", but in modern usage it's changed to mean "to take a spouse", "to marry". It's more commonly used in this compound (with the verb 結 meaning "knot, tie; join, connect"): https://www.mdbg.net/chinese/dictionary?page=worddict&wdrst=1&wdqb=結婚 Instead of saying H娶W or W嫁H, it's become common to say H同W結婚 [同 means "together", so basically {婚chuq H W je}]. Also, the whole complementary roles thing is exactly what they say at Chinese weddings, except instead of Kahless and Lukara, it's the story of the dragon and the phoenix. (If you've ever been to a Chinese banquet hall where they do weddings, you might see a mural of a dragon and phoenix facing off. That's where the newlywed couple sits during a wedding reception.) I don't know if MO got the {Saw}/{nay} distinction from Chinese (it's not the only language to have separate verbs for "to marry" for men and women), but the whole yin-yang description makes it very suspicious. Another thing which was discussed recently (over on FB) which might have come from or been influenced by Chinese is the distinction between {pob}, {jIb}, {rol}, and {loch}. In Chinese, they're considered four different things: (體)毛 = {pob}, (頭)髮 = {jIb}, 鬍鬚 = {rol}, and 髭 = {loch}. I don't know if Chinese is the only language to make that distinction, or if Klingon considers {rol} and {loch} to be {pob} or {jIb} (i.e., whether "facial hair" is "head hair" or "body hair"), but at least they have in common that they distinguish (have separate words for) "body hair" and "head hair". -- De'vID
On 13 Jul 2017 7:24 pm, "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0@gmail.com <mailto:niqolay0@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:25 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote:
> naHQun also suggested *{bIQpuH'a'} - as well as *{bIQpuH} > "island"
Shouldn't this preferably be {bIQ puH} instead of {bIQpuH} ?
MO tends to lean towards using noun-noun phrases rather than compound nouns but IIRC he's said that it's not a big deal to prefer one way over the other (or something to that effect, at least).
On 7/13/2017 12:33 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
So we can glue two nouns together ?
No. Your question is exactly why we have to be careful when telling people that Okrand said it wasn't a big deal. When SPEAKING, there's no difference between *bIQ puH* and *bIQpuH.* That doesn't make the latter a genuine, single word. Spaces are a form of punctuation. IcouldwriteeverythinginonelongstringoflettersanditwouldbeperfectlyvalidEnglish, but we punctuate our words with spaces to make them readable. I'm pretty sure you agree that "IcouldwriteeverythinginonelongstringoflettersanditwouldbeperfectlyvalidEnglish" is not a word; it's a bunch of words without spaces between them. What we do with our Latin-letter-based transcription system for Klingon is show the phonemes of Klingon, not the writing system. Any punctuation we use is up to us and for our benefit. The transcription system represents what Klingon SOUNDS like, not how its grammar works. When Okrand says it's no big deal whether you transcribe things like *wa'Hu'* instead of *wa' Hu',* he's saying that it SOUNDS the same anyway, so no big deal, don't read too much into it. He's NOT saying that you can glue two nouns together to coin a new word. Let's take the phrase *baS 'In* /metal drum./ Let's suppose you've learned it as a single word, *baS'In.* Now tell me the word for a drum that you THINK is made of metal. If you said *baS'InHey,* that means /thing you think is a metal drum,/ not something you know is a drum but which you only think is made of metal. If you said *baSHey'In,* okay, that means what I asked, but now you can put suffixes in the middle of nouns? Or are you really dealing with two words after all, and just taking away the space punctuation? Exactly what have you accomplished by "gluing" those nouns together, then taking them apart again long enough to shove a suffix in there? How is it any different than just saying *baSHey 'In?* And if it's no different, why not do us a favor and punctuate your sentences helpfully? Related question: If you're squishing words together (and not using slang), is a *DeSHom* an arm-bone or a minor arm? -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 1:45 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 13 Jul 2017 7:24 pm, "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:25 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
naHQun also suggested *{bIQpuH'a'} - as well as *{bIQpuH} "island"
Shouldn't this preferably be {bIQ puH} instead of {bIQpuH} ?
MO tends to lean towards using noun-noun phrases rather than compound nouns but IIRC he's said that it's not a big deal to prefer one way over the other (or something to that effect, at least).
On 7/13/2017 12:33 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
So we can glue two nouns together ?
Let's take the phrase *baS 'In* *metal drum.* Let's suppose you've learned it as a single word, *baS'In.* Now tell me the word for a drum that you THINK is made of metal.
If you said *baS'InHey,* that means *thing you think is a metal drum,* not something you know is a drum but which you only think is made of metal.
If you said *baSHey'In,* okay, that means what I asked, but now you can put suffixes in the middle of nouns? Or are you really dealing with two words after all, and just taking away the space punctuation? Exactly what have you accomplished by "gluing" those nouns together, then taking them apart again long enough to shove a suffix in there? How is it any different than just saying *baSHey 'In?*
Let's take the phrase *DIvI' may' Duj* *Federation battle cruiser.* Let's suppose you've learned it as a single word, *DIvI'may'Duj.* Now tell me the word for a battle cruiser that is affiliated with a group you THINK is the Federation. If you said *DIvI'may'DujHey,* that means *thing you think is a Federation battle cruiser,* not something you know is a battle cruiser but which is affiliated with a group you only think is the Federation. If you said *DIvI'Heymay'Duj,* okay, that means what I asked, but now you can put suffixes in the middle of nouns? Or are you really dealing with three words after all, and just taking away the space punctuation? Exactly what have you accomplished by "gluing" those nouns together, then taking them apart again long enough to shove a suffix in there? How is it any different than just saying *DIvI'Hey may' Duj?* To be less of a *petaQ* about it: The point of leaving out spaces between nouns and/or making them into a single compound noun is to emphasize the relationship between those nouns, to say that both (or all three) concepts are inherent or essential parts of the thing being discussed, and not merely incidental. To use a contrived example, *maS puH Duj* could be written as, say, *maS puHDuj* (to emphasize that this is a land vehicle, and that, incidentally, it is on the moon or somehow related to a moon, but the concept of doing things on a moon is not an essential part of its nature) or perhaps *maSpuH Duj* (to emphasize that the moon's terrain is a significant concept in and of itself -- perhaps it has some unique geological feature -- and then, additionally, there's a vehicle that is somehow involved with that terrain that is being discussed), or just straight up *maSpuHDuj* (which would emphasize that being on moon land is an inherent part of the vehicle's design, like, say, an Apollo lunar rover). In the end, of course *maS puH Duj* and *maSpuHDuj* mean pretty much the same thing, but there are nuances and connotations that can be suggested by how the nouns are grouped together. Personally, I don't usually combine noun-noun phrases into a single word (mostly because it's a contentious issue). If I did, I'd mostly just stick to existing noun-noun phrases for which we have set meanings (like *SorHap* for wood, *muDDuj* for airplane, or *ghav'uSqan* for steel) since my intended meaning would have an obvious precedent. And I wouldn't mind if someone else used *SorHap* et al. either. Conversely, I don't think I'd accept a simple possessive construction as a compound, since a thing's owner is rarely an inherent part of its "essential nature"*.* (Although this is not always the case, e.g., battle cruisers owned by the Federation.) It's important to avoid confusion and be understood, but to be honest I think this issue is far less prone to hazards than it's being presented as here.
Related question: If you're squishing words together (and not using slang), is a *DeSHom* an arm-bone or a minor arm?
Is *DIS* a year or a cave? You have to tell from context, just like every other homonym in Klingon. I'd probably avoid *DeSHom* for arm-bone even if I were more inclined to make compound nouns, since it's not really a set phrase like *Sor Hap* and because *-Hom* is an actual suffix. But in a bone-related context (or any context where the idea of a "minor arm" was more nonsensical than "arm bone", which is probably most contexts), I would probably interpret it as "arm-bone" and just shrug off the ambiguity.
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
We don't have a word for continent although I once found *{Hatlh'a'} used on the KLI's web site. naHQun also suggested *{bIQpuH'a'} - as well as *{bIQpuH} "island".
Did I really? IIRC, I looked up "ocean" and "land" and tried to combine {bIQ'a'} with {puH} and ended up with *{bIQ'a'puH}. But that must've been a good decade ago. -- ~Michael Roney, Jr. Freelance Translator
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
We don't have a word for continent although I once found *{Hatlh'a'} used on the KLI's web site. naHQun also suggested *{bIQpuH'a'} - as well as *{bIQpuH} "island".
Interesting. I've been using {puH'a'} for "continent" in my personal writings. The way I see it: - {Hatlh} is "countryside" (as opposed to "city"). I would probably interpret {Halth'a'} as "frontier", ie, a countryside so vast, it's almost unexplored. - {yav} is "ground" (as opposed to "sky"). I don't know what I'd make of {yav'a'}. - {puH} is "land" (as opposed to "sea"). Looking at a map of Kronos, we'd only see {wa' puH} and {wa' bIQ'a'}. Looking at a map of Earth, we'd see many {puHmey} and several {bIQ'a'mey}. Some of the {puHmey} are more prominent, so we call them {puH'a'}. Of course, this is just my own interpretation based on the English glosses. Klingons might not use those word that way. Heck, even other English speakers might disagree with my interpretation of the glosses. bI'reng
participants (15)
-
Anthony Appleyard -
Brent Kesler -
De'vID -
Elizabeth Faber -
John R. Harness -
Klingon Word of the Day -
Lawrence M. Schoen -
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
Michael Roney, Jr. -
nIqolay Q -
qurgh lungqIj -
Rebecca Krause -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel