It's worth noting that - if I recall correctly - the translation of {ngIq} as "singular one" is not by word of god (or Maltz), but rather an extrapolation by a Klingon-speaker based on his/her reading of the paq'batlh. As I recall, this was one of the qep'a' attendees who helped proof-read the paq'batlh, and he/she was reporting from memory. Personally, weighing the number of examples, I get the impression that "each" or "one by one" should be the primary translation; the idea of "singular one" only appears in one canto of paq'batlh, while it the idea of "each" or "one by one" appears in two separate cantos and also in Klingon Monopoly. I think one possibility is that Marc interpreted "In one move he X:ed, in one move he Y:ed, in one move he Z:ed and in one move he W:ed" as referring to four separate moves, thus motivating the use of the newly coined word {ngIq}. Another possibility is that the repetition of {ngIq} is to be regarded as poetic, and that the "in one single move" interpretation comes from repetition. ...or, most tantalizingly, it may be from some dual meaning that doesn't make any sense to us, but makes perfect sense to native Klingon-speakers. ________________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 18:04 To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list Subject: Re: [tlhIngan-Hol] A question on {ngIq} Thank you voragh for replying ; comments follow :

ngIq nuv luHoH they killed the warriors one by one.

This sentence is a perfect example to describe my confusion on {ngIq} ; I can't understand why the translation is given as "they killed the warriors one by one", and not as "they killed a single warrior".

ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej tIqDu' lel ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej quvqa' ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej rIn may' In one single move, he removed the hearts, In one single move, he restored his honor, In one single move, the battle was done.

Here I understand the "one single move" translation, over the "one by one", because the latter makes no sense.

ngIq tonSaw' lo' SaD law' San chenmoH qeylIS wej boghbogh nuvpu' San chenmoH In one single move, Kahless decided the fate of thousands, and those to come.

Same here too.

nIteb chegh molor ngIq ghoqwI' One by one Molor's scouts return

Why "one by one" and not "a single scout of Molor returned alone" ?

ngIq raQ - 150 QaS outposts cost 150 [forces] each

Why {ngIq raQ}, and not {Hoch raQ} ? Why the {ngIq raQ} is given as "each outpost" instead of "a single outpost" ?

ngIq raQ - 200 QaS, mon - 200 QaS loS raQmey je Outposts cost 200 [forces] each; capitals, 200 [forces] each plus 4 outposts.

Same here too.

ngIq raQvaD cha'maH vagh QaS yInob For each outpost pay 25 forces.

Same here too ; why "for each outpost", and not "for a single outpost" ?

ngIq gholvaD vaghmaH QaS yInob Pay each player 50 forces.

Same comments too.

ngIq gholvo' wa'maH QaS yItlhap Collect 10 forces from every player.

..and again the same. Now, ok ; I can leave with the fact that in the given translations "each" and "single", seemingly are used in a random and apparently interchangeable way. But I really do have a problem - a major problem - with the sentences :

nIteb chegh molor ngIq ghoqwI' One by one Molor's scouts return. ngIq nuv luHoH they killed the warriors one by one.

Is there a rule here I'm missing ? Why, why, why "one by one" and not "a single one" ? And to repeat my original question : If I wanted to write : "We destroyed his birds of prey one by one", then what should I write ? ngIq toQDujmeyDaj DIQaw'ta' ? or ngIq toQDujmeyDaj wIQaw'ta' ? or maybe something else ? mayqel qunnoQ On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:

To get the discussion started, here are the examples I know of:

ngIq nuv luHoH they killed the warriors one by one. ('U'-OPERA)

ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej tIqDu' lel ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej quvqa' ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej rIn may' In one single move, he removed the hearts, In one single move, he restored his honor, In one single move, the battle was done. PB

ngIq tonSaw' lo' SaD law' San chenmoH qeylIS wej boghbogh nuvpu' San chenmoH In one single move, Kahless decided the fate of thousands, and those to come. PB

nIteb chegh molor ngIq ghoqwI' One by one Molor's scouts return PB

ngIq raQ - 150 QaS outposts cost 150 [forces] each MKE (= Monopoly)

ngIq raQ - 200 QaS, mon - 200 QaS loS raQmey je Outposts cost 200 [forces] each; capitals, 200 [forces] each plus 4 outposts. MKE

ngIq raQvaD cha'maH vagh QaS yInob For each outpost pay 25 forces. MKE

ngIq gholvaD vaghmaH QaS yInob Pay each player 50 forces. MKE

ngIq gholvo' wa'maH QaS yItlhap Collect 10 forces from every player. MKE

-- Voragh tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a' Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

...

-----Original Message----- From: tlhIngan-Hol [mailto:tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org] On Behalf Of mayqel qunenoS Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 7:45 AM

Recently I run into the spatial anomaly of {ngIq} ; so, I am sending this distress call, in order to overcome this difficulty. Any help from warbirds nearby, will be greatly appreciated.

First of all let me write the definition :

{ngIq} a single one, each one

According to qep'a' 2011 : This noun indicates that (1) a single thing is being considered apart from others, or (2) that a sequence of identical things is considered one after another.

My question is this :

How do we actually use the {ngIq}, in order to achieve the (1), or (2) meaning ?

For example in {Hoch}, we have various possibilities, depending on whether the noun which follows is singular or plural. But what's the case with {ngIq} ?

If I write :

ngIq mu'tlhegh vIghItlhta'. this means "I wrote a single sentence" right ?

but if I wanted to write :

"We destroyed his birds of prey one by one", then what would I do ?

perhaps :

ngIq toQDujmeyDaj DIQaw'ta' ? or ngIq toQDujmeyDaj wIQaw'ta' ?

or maybe something else ?

Can someone shed some light on this ?

thanks

qunnoq HoD _______________________________________________ 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

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

This is my opinion on {ngIq} (so it may be wrong). To me it represents each single item within a collection of items, with the noun coming after it describing what is in the collection. {ngIq naH} - "Each fruit (in a collection of fruit)" {ngIq naH vIlarghpu' 'ej ghIq naH vIparHa'bogh vISoppu'} - "I sniffed each fruit, and then I ate the fruit I liked" {ngIq nuH} - "A single weapon (from a collection of weapons)" {Hoch jaghpu'lI' HoHmeH ngIq nuH lo'} - "In order to kill all his enemies, he used each weapon" On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:04 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej tIqDu' lel

...

ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej quvqa' ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej rIn may' In one single move, he removed the hearts, In one single move, he restored his honor, In one single move, the battle was done.

Here I understand the "one single move" translation, over the "one by one", because the latter makes no sense.

I see {tonSaw'} as a collection of moves, so Kahless is using each single move to do the actions.

nIteb chegh molor ngIq ghoqwI'

...

One by one Molor's scouts return

Why "one by one" and not "a single scout of Molor returned alone" ?

I see this as "alone, each of Molor's scouts returned". There is a collection of them, but they are doing things individually. Since they came back alone, they return "one by one".

...

ngIq raQ - 150 QaS outposts cost 150 [forces] each

Why {ngIq raQ}, and not {Hoch raQ} ? Why the {ngIq raQ} is given as "each outpost" instead of "a single outpost" ?

Each outpost is a single output from the collection of outposts (houses) that come with the game, but you can buy more than 1 at a time, so we use the word "each". A single candy bar cost $10, so if you have a box of candy bars each bar will cost $10. The same goes for the rest of the Monopoly purchases.

Now, ok ; I can leave with the fact that in the given translations "each" and "single", seemingly are used in a random and apparently interchangeable way.

Because "each" is a "single" item from the pool of items. The English word used in the translation is based on whatever makes most sense in the context. If I only buy 1 outpost, a single outpost costs X, if I put 10 outposts, each outpost costs X.

But I really do have a problem - a major problem - with the sentences :

...

nIteb chegh molor ngIq ghoqwI' One by one Molor's scouts return. ngIq nuv luHoH they killed the warriors one by one.

Is there a rule here I'm missing ? Why, why, why "one by one" and not "a single one" ?

Because it's not a single one, it's what each individual in the collection is doing. The second line is: "They killed each person (one at a time)." They didn't the people all at the same time.

And to repeat my original question :

If I wanted to write :

"We destroyed his birds of prey one by one", then what should I write ?

ngIq toQDujmeyDaj DIQaw'ta' ? or ngIq toQDujmeyDaj wIQaw'ta' ?

or maybe something else ?

Are there multiple ships that were destroyed, one at time? Then I'd go with: ngIq toQDujmeyDaj DIQaw'ta' - We destroyed each of his birds of prey (one at a time, not all together). qurgh

Personally I reserve the use of {ngIq} for when I want the sense of "each in series" or "one by one", since we already have good terminology for expressing "just one": We have {wa'}, {mob}, {neH} and {nIteb}. {chegh wa' ghoqwI' mob.} = "One lone spy returned." {chegh wa' ghoqwI' neH.} = "Only one spy returned." (The use of {neH} rather than {mob} might imply that you were expecting more.) As for using a plural suffix to specify this meaning, I'd advise against that, as the only example we have where {ngIq} is explicitly numbered, it is singular: {ngIq nuv luHoH.} "They killed the warriors one by one." But yes, this is certainly a word that would be nice to know more about; this seemingly dual meaning makes it all the more exciting! ________________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 09:40 To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list Subject: Re: [tlhIngan-Hol] A question on {ngIq} thank you felix and qurgh, for adding to the conversation ; By now, I realize that we do not have a clear-cut solution to this problem - a solution provided bu 'oqranD, that is -. So, after everything I read in this thread so far, I come to realize that we need to depend on context, in order to understand whether we must read "a single one" or "one by one". However my problem remains : If I am to use the word {ngIq}, then how do I specify for the reader, which use of it I am employing ? Today, a few minutes after I woke up, this solution came to mind : If I'm aiming for the "single one" meaning, I will use {ngiq} in conjuction with {wa'}. Example : jIHvaD ngIq wa' vIghro' Danob. you gave for me a single cat. Of course now, this raises the question : "do I place the {wa'} before or after the {ngIq} ?". But I do not see a reason, it could not be placed either way. Both "one single cat" and "a single one cat cat" are the same after all.. Now, if I am aiming for the "one by one' meaning, then I need to use context to specify. Hoch vIghromey' DISurghta'. wa'DIch wa' vIghro' wISurghta' ghIq latlh.. ngIq vIghromey'vam DISurghta'. we skinned all the cats. first we skinned one cat, then another.. one by one we skinned them. However, even if we didn't go to these lengths, to provide for the "one by one" meaning, I guess that if not anything else, the use of the prefix {DI-}, expresses that we are talking about the group, from which group we were skinning the cats one after the other, in succession. And because of this reason, I agree with qurgh that for the ""We destroyed his birds of prey one by one", the {ngIq toQDujmeyDaj DIQaw'ta'}, is the way to go. Anyway, only 'oqranD can clarify this, so if anyone would like, then please do ask him in the qep'a' to come.. mayqel qunnoQ On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 8:14 PM, qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:

This is my opinion on {ngIq} (so it may be wrong). To me it represents each single item within a collection of items, with the noun coming after it describing what is in the collection.

{ngIq naH} - "Each fruit (in a collection of fruit)" {ngIq naH vIlarghpu' 'ej ghIq naH vIparHa'bogh vISoppu'} - "I sniffed each fruit, and then I ate the fruit I liked"

{ngIq nuH} - "A single weapon (from a collection of weapons)" {Hoch jaghpu'lI' HoHmeH ngIq nuH lo'} - "In order to kill all his enemies, he used each weapon"

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:04 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

...

...

ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej tIqDu' lel ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej quvqa' ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej rIn may' In one single move, he removed the hearts, In one single move, he restored his honor, In one single move, the battle was done.

Here I understand the "one single move" translation, over the "one by one", because the latter makes no sense.

I see {tonSaw'} as a collection of moves, so Kahless is using each single move to do the actions.

...

...

nIteb chegh molor ngIq ghoqwI' One by one Molor's scouts return

Why "one by one" and not "a single scout of Molor returned alone" ?

I see this as "alone, each of Molor's scouts returned". There is a collection of them, but they are doing things individually. Since they came back alone, they return "one by one".

...

...

ngIq raQ - 150 QaS outposts cost 150 [forces] each

Why {ngIq raQ}, and not {Hoch raQ} ? Why the {ngIq raQ} is given as "each outpost" instead of "a single outpost" ?

Each outpost is a single output from the collection of outposts (houses) that come with the game, but you can buy more than 1 at a time, so we use the word "each".

A single candy bar cost $10, so if you have a box of candy bars each bar will cost $10.

The same goes for the rest of the Monopoly purchases.

...

Now, ok ; I can leave with the fact that in the given translations "each" and "single", seemingly are used in a random and apparently interchangeable way.

Because "each" is a "single" item from the pool of items. The English word used in the translation is based on whatever makes most sense in the context. If I only buy 1 outpost, a single outpost costs X, if I put 10 outposts, each outpost costs X.

...

But I really do have a problem - a major problem - with the sentences :

...

nIteb chegh molor ngIq ghoqwI' One by one Molor's scouts return. ngIq nuv luHoH they killed the warriors one by one.

Is there a rule here I'm missing ? Why, why, why "one by one" and not "a single one" ?

Because it's not a single one, it's what each individual in the collection is doing.

The second line is: "They killed each person (one at a time)." They didn't the people all at the same time.

...

And to repeat my original question :

If I wanted to write :

"We destroyed his birds of prey one by one", then what should I write ?

ngIq toQDujmeyDaj DIQaw'ta' ? or ngIq toQDujmeyDaj wIQaw'ta' ?

or maybe something else ?

Are there multiple ships that were destroyed, one at time? Then I'd go with:

ngIq toQDujmeyDaj DIQaw'ta' - We destroyed each of his birds of prey (one at a time, not all together).

qurgh

_______________________________________________ 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

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 9:44 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

...

{ngIq naH} - "Each fruit (in a collection of fruit)" {ngIq naH vIlarghpu' 'ej ghIq naH vIparHa'bogh vISoppu'} - "I sniffed

each

...

fruit, and then I ate the fruit I liked"

The implication is that you sniffed each one individually, apart from the others.

That's what I was thinking. I sniff each one (one at a time), and when I'm done I eat the one I liked the smell of.

...

{ngIq nuH} - "A single weapon (from a collection of weapons)" {Hoch jaghpu'lI' HoHmeH ngIq nuH lo'} - "In order to kill all his enemies, he used each weapon"

This suggests he used each weapon in turn, as opposed to using each of the weapons, perhaps together or in combination.

Again that's what I was going for. He took each weapon he owned, one at a time, and killed someone with it. Maybe he had a stack of knives that could only be used once. This meaning for {ngIq} makes perfect sense to me (I almost wrote the foreach comparison myself in an earlier email, but decided against it, so I'm glad someone else sees it that way). Now onto the confusing passage....

...

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:04 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

...

...

ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej tIqDu' lel ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej quvqa' ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej rIn may' In one single move, he removed the hearts, In one single move, he restored his honor, In one single move, the battle was done.

Here I understand the "one single move" translation, over the "one by one", because the latter makes no sense.

I see {tonSaw'} as a collection of moves, so Kahless is using each single move to do the actions.

I believe {tonSaw'} is a single move, either in a game or a fight. To me, the above reads unambiguously that the multiple sentences are referring to the same one move, i.e., in one action, Kahless simultaneously removed Molor's hearts, restored his honour, and finished the battle.

Does anyone read this as three separate moves?

I see what you're saying about Kahless's actions, based on the English. In one move Kahless removed the hearts, restored his honor, and the battle was done... not "in a single move he removed the heart, in another single move he restored his honor and in another single move the battle was done" (implying everyone died after that last move). My understanding of the Klingon clouded my reading of the English. I've come to a different understanding of {tonSaw'}, so I'm going to focus on that for a minute: Are you saying that {tonSaw'} is the name for the "move" action itself, and not the name for the collection of "moves" one can do in general? EG In Street fighter, my character knows a bunch of "moves", but pushing the button just does one "move" at a time, so the character doesn't know a bunch of {tonSaw'mey}, he just makes one {tonSaw'} after another when you push the buttons? Moving a piece in Chess could be considered a {tonSaw'}? I was always under the impression that {tonSaw'} was the name of all the different techniques within a martial art, so {moQbara'} contains specific {tonSaw'mey} that Klingons would learn and use in a fight. Kahless would have known hundreds of {tonSaw'mey}. If {tonSaw'} refers to the move action, then Kahless only used one move in the fight, and the array of {tonSaw'} would only have 1 item in it, leading to {ngIq tonSaw'} meaning "a single move" (and then repeating that phrase would tie actions together because it's all happening while the same single move happens). However, what if the noun following {ngIq} could be a collection or a single item, or a collection that I'm only talking about one item from, how do we differentiate between the two intended meanings? Does {ngIq vIghro' vISay'moH} mean "I clean a single cat" or "I clean each cat"? qurgh

De'vID, thank you for all this information. I read carefully your explanation ; some parts I understood perfectly, while others still confuse me. I'm trying to find a pattern ; a rule, which would unambiguously differrentiate between the two possible meanings of ngIq. A rule or rules, similar to the one/ones we have for Hoch. Unfortunately, so far I can't seem to find a pattern.. All I can seem to understand so far, is that context is the only full-proof way, of making the distinction between the two possible explanations. I don't know.. I just don't know.. Something eludes me here ; And I'm continuing to get a headache, just by trying to process my own example : "We destroyed his birds of prey one by one" You wrote, that the way to go would be : {ngIq toQDujDaj wIQaw'ta'}. However I cannot understand, why this couldn't mean too "we destroyed a single bird of his birds of prey". Unless, this rule applies : "..Whenever we know that there is a group of things, and the ngIq precedes one of them, then in the resulting sentence the only possible meaning is "one by one" PROVIDED we (the subject) are doing something to/for the group.." And I'm putting the "PROVIDED", to account for the outpost example ; there, we don't do something to the group of the outposts ; we are talking that each outpost costs whatever.. And this rule seems to agree perfectly with qurgh's fruit example. Would you agree with this rule ? qunnoq On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 7:46 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8 June 2016 at 17:23, qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:

...

...

...

...

...

ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej tIqDu' lel ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej quvqa' ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej rIn may' In one single move, he removed the hearts, In one single move, he restored his honor, In one single move, the battle was done. [...]

I see what you're saying about Kahless's actions, based on the English. In one move Kahless removed the hearts, restored his honor, and the battle was done... not "in a single move he removed the heart, in another single move he restored his honor and in another single move the battle was done" (implying everyone died after that last move). My understanding of the Klingon clouded my reading of the English.

I've come to a different understanding of {tonSaw'}, so I'm going to focus on that for a minute:

Are you saying that {tonSaw'} is the name for the "move" action itself, and not the name for the collection of "moves" one can do in general?

Yes. But why can't it be both, just like the English word "move" or "maneuver"?

I think you're drawing the distinction between what I'll call an abstract "move-template" and a concrete "move-action" here, so I'll use that terminology below.

...

EG In Street fighter, my character knows a bunch of "moves", but pushing the button just does one "move" at a time, so the character doesn't know a bunch of {tonSaw'mey}, he just makes one {tonSaw'} after another when you push the buttons?

I don't see why these options have to be exclusive? Your character perhaps knows the *{ro' tonSaw'}, *{HoS tonSaw'}, and *{maS tonSaw'} (these are his move templates which he can execute), and as the opening move maybe you execute the *{ro' tonSaw'} (this is the first move-action actually executed).

The source for how I've interpreted {tonSaw'} comes from you, actually. You reported that Maltz suggested {tonSaw' Qav} for "The Final Reflection" under the belief that a "reflection" is a type of move (move-template) in the game of klin zha. But if it's important to preserve the "mirror" connotation of this move, he suggested {neSlo' tonSaw' Qav}. The fact that you can use {Qav} to describe a {tonSaw'} suggests that, under this meaning, it is a "move" in the move-action sense.

...

Moving a piece in Chess could be considered a {tonSaw'}?

I would think so, if making "the final reflection" (the finishing move in a game of klin zha) is to use {[neSlo'] tonSaw' Qav}, then moving a piece in chess seems to me to be exactly a {tonSaw'}.

...

I was always under the impression that {tonSaw'} was the name of all the different techniques within a martial art, so {moQbara'} contains specific {tonSaw'mey} that Klingons would learn and use in a fight. Kahless would have known hundreds of {tonSaw'mey}.

{notlh tonSaw'lIj} suggests that that meaning might also work, i.e., "the technique you're trying to use (your move-template) is obsolete". Although, I suppose that this also makes sense under the other interpretation, i.e., "the actual thing you're doing (your move-action) is obsolete". They effectively amount to the same thing.

...

If {tonSaw'} refers to the move action, then Kahless only used one move in the fight, and the array of {tonSaw'} would only have 1 item in it, leading to {ngIq tonSaw'} meaning "a single move" (and then repeating that phrase would tie actions together because it's all happening while the same single move happens).

I don't think Kahless used only one move in the entire fight. (Or maybe he did? I don't have the paq'batlh with me right now to check.) It's just that the particular paragraph with {ngIq tonSaw'} is focused on just that one final move (move-action).

...

However, what if the noun following {ngIq} could be a collection or a single item, or a collection that I'm only talking about one item from, how do we differentiate between the two intended meanings? Does {ngIq vIghro' vISay'moH} mean "I clean a single cat" or "I clean each cat"?

I think just context?

{vagh vIghro'mey vIghaj. ngIq vIghro' vISay'moH} "I have five cats. I clean each cat in turn."

{ngIq vIghro' vIje' 'ej vIghungHa'moH, [ngIq vIghro' vIje'] 'ej vItammoH, [ngIq vIghro' vIje'] 'ej vIbelmoH, [ngIq vIghro' vIje'] 'ej vIQongmoH}

If it's been established previously in the text that the speaker has only one cat, that's a very fancy way of saying "I feed a single cat, and it makes him full, quiet, pleased, and asleep".

OTOH, if it's been previously established that the speaker has multiple cats, then he's doing that action to each one of them. "I feed each cat, and make each one full, quiet, pleased, and asleep."

(Also, if one isn't writing a poem, I think the three subsequent {ngIq vIghro' vIje'}s can be dropped. They're just for emphasis, really.)

-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

On 8 June 2016 at 21:23, qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:46 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Yes. But why can't it be both, just like the English word "move" or "maneuver"?

I think you're drawing the distinction between what I'll call an abstract "move-template" and a concrete "move-action" here, so I'll use that terminology below.

To me it's because the gloss is "fighting technique" not "fighting move". A "technique" is a description of how to do something (a move-template), not the actual doing of it (move-action). For that we have verbs like {chaQ}, {ngol}, {lev}, {pup}, etc. Those are words for the "move-actions".

I think of those as basic actions, of which named "techniques" are combinations (of one or more). Actually, that's an established terminology in martial arts. I don't know to what extent Marc Okrand or you have watched dubbed Chinese martial arts movies, or read books about martial arts, so I may be biased to how certain terminology is translated into English.

...

I don't see why these options have to be exclusive? Your character perhaps knows the *{ro' tonSaw'}, *{HoS tonSaw'}, and *{maS tonSaw'} (these are his move templates which he can execute), and as the opening move maybe you execute the *{ro' tonSaw'} (this is the first move-action actually executed).

The character could use the {ro' tonSaw'} (move-template) to execute a hit with the fist (move-action), or a {HoS tonSaw'} (move-template) to send a fireball (move-action) at his opponent. He used the knowledge gained from learning the {tonSaw'} to make his limbs move but he didn't DO the {tonSaw'}. (After he learned a fighting technique, he used the fighting technique to do X, he didn't do the fighting technique). In English you can both learn a move and do a move (learn a technique and take an action based on it), but I don't see why this slang meaning of "move" should be carried over to Klingon.

I think the connection between the move-template and the move-action is quite natural. When a person {ro' tonSaw' lo'}, what else are they doing if not performing the action specified by the template? So, actually, I'm completely biased by translated martial arts terminology here, because I suspect that {tonSaw'} is some kind of pun or reference to a Chinese term. The Chinese word 手, meaning hand and pronounced sau2 in Cantonese, is the last character of (almost?) all hand-based martial arts techniques. For example, here are the so-called 18-hand technique names from Wing Chun kung fu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_Chun_terms#18_hand_technique_names - Notice that all of them are named something-sau. There's even a specific Wing Chun technique called 攤手 (taan1 sau2). It's not close enough to {tonSaw'} for me to say that that must be the origin of the Klingon word. But it's not out of the realm of possibility that there is some fighting technique called "ton sau" in a Chinese martial art from which Okrand picked up the term. As a captioner, perhaps Okrand had worked on some martial arts movie and the term stuck with him. But that's just speculation on my part. (Quick, someone with spare time investigate if Marc Okrand has ever captioned any Chinese martial arts movies!)

...

The source for how I've interpreted {tonSaw'} comes from you, actually. You reported that Maltz suggested {tonSaw' Qav} for "The Final Reflection" under the belief that a "reflection" is a type of move (move-template) in the game of klin zha. But if it's important to preserve the "mirror" connotation of this move, he suggested {neSlo' tonSaw' Qav}. The fact that you can use {Qav} to describe a {tonSaw'} suggests that, under this meaning, it is a "move" in the move-action sense.

To me this is "the final mirror fighting technique", it's the last technique (move-template) that people playing the Reflective game would use to win it. It's not the physical action of picking up a piece and placing it (move-action). {tonSaw'} are used during fighting/playing, but the "move-actions" done while following the techniques are not the techniques themselves, they are the results of the techniques. It's like how knowing how to plant a tree (move-template) and planting a tree (move-action) are not the same thing in my mind.

I read "The Final Reflection" many years ago, but don't have the book any more, and don't remember much of it. I'm interpreting "the final reflection" as the last move made in a game, and perhaps I'm mistaken about that. But if that's what it means, then I can't see how {tonSaw' Qav} could be interpreted in this context as other than "final move-action". (Also, klin zha is a turn-based game, right? If that's the case, perhaps the last "move" in this sense isn't necessarily atomic, but may consist of multiple individual moves, perhaps even spread over multiple turns.) The difference between the move-template and move-action meaning is this: If, for example, the move-templates are in order of difficulty, and students typically learn them in order, then I can see how {tonSaw' Qav} could mean the final, most difficult move-template to learn. But I don't think that's what's being described by the title of the book? We are definitely interpreting the word "technique" differently, because when I read "the final mirror fighting technique", I do read it as being the last move-action in the context of a game. Like I said, "technique" is established martial arts terminology for a move or series of moves (and also the template behind that).

...

...

Moving a piece in Chess could be considered a {tonSaw'}?

I would think so, if making "the final reflection" (the finishing move in a game of klin zha) is to use {[neSlo'] tonSaw' Qav}, then moving a piece in chess seems to me to be exactly a {tonSaw'}.

I'd argue that the way in which the pieces move would be {tonSaw'mey} (move-templates), but physically moving a piece isn't (move-action). In Monopoly the verbs {HeD} and {jaH} are used to refer to physically moving the playing pieces (go back 3 spaces, move to go). Those would be "move-actions".

Those move-actions are the basic building blocks, but they are not necessarily the "techniques", though they could be. I don't know enough about (Western) chess terminology, but Chinese chess is very similar and hopefully this will make sense. There's a "technique" in Chinese chess called 馬後俥 (literally, chariot behind horse). Horse is basically the "knight" piece in Western chess, and moves the same way (two in one direction, then one in the perpendicular direction). Chariot is basically the rook (moves in a straight line). The way a 馬後俥 works is the knight attacks a piece, such that if it stood still it would be killed by the knight's next move, but if it tried to escape it would be killed by the rook's next move. I'm sure the analogous setup exists in Western chess. But that's a "technique" in the martial arts sense: a move or series of moves put together in a certain way, and named so it can be learned and practised. (A single move is probably too simple to earn a name, unless the technique is about using that move in the right way or context.) In fact, the same term is used in both Chinese chess and Chinese martial arts to describe this sense of "technique" (series of moves): https://www.mdbg.net/chindict/chindict.php?wdqb=招 http://www.cantonese.sheik.co.uk/scripts/showchar.php?id=1147 Okay, so I have to partially retract/revise what I wrote above: moving a piece in chess may be a {tonSaw'} by itself in some contexts, or it may not; or it may be part of a more complicated {tonSaw'} consisting of several smaller atomic moves, spread over several turns.

...

{notlh tonSaw'lIj} suggests that that meaning might also work, i.e., "the technique you're trying to use (your move-template) is obsolete". Although, I suppose that this also makes sense under the other interpretation, i.e., "the actual thing you're doing (your move-action) is obsolete". They effectively amount to the same thing.

If your action is based on an obsolete technique, then I could see how people would extend the obsoleteness to the action too, although I'd wrinkle my nose at that usage. This is all very subjective though, as something that is obsolete for one person may be new for someone else. When it comes to fighting, it would mean that I know techniques that can be used to nullify the techniques you know without you knowing the new techniques I know.

The very funny thing about martial arts novels or movies is that the characters are generally in agreement that, given any two techniques, one will defeat the other when both are executed perfectly. (There is no "best" technique because there are rock-paper-scissors situations.) Characters will have discussions about how to counter an enemy who knows techniques A, B, and C, by saying that you counter A with X, B with Y, and C with Z. Actually, that may be very similar to Street Fighter-style fighting games.

...

I don't think Kahless used only one move in the entire fight. (Or maybe he did? I don't have the paq'batlh with me right now to check.) It's just that the particular paragraph with {ngIq tonSaw'} is focused on just that one final move (move-action).

Speaking of paq'batlh, there's more references to {tonSaw'} in it. I don't have the English with me though, but I've included my own translations.

Here's the lines that surround the "Single move" block:

tugh qaStaHvIS rep wejDIch molor cha' tIqDu' DuQchu' qeylIS 'ej lel ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej tIqDu' lel ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej quvqa' ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej rIn may'

(Soon while the third hour is happening, Kahless stabbed molor's two hearts and took them out. he used a single technique and he took out the hearts, he used a single technique and he became honored again, he used a single technique and the battle was finished)

After looking at this expanded text, this all makes more sense. The move-action has been described which is made up of two actions (Stabbing two hearts and taking them out), but it then referred to as a single technique (which makes sense to be, since a technique could be a collection of different physical actions (like a judo lock isn't just X, it's X, then Y, then Z done in sequence)). If {tonSaw'} referred to the the "move-actions" themselves that Kahless took, it would have to be plural because he stabbed and then took out (you can't push in and out at the same time! :D).

I think we've reached an agreement here. The single {tonSaw'} that Kahless used consists of two smaller actions: stabbing Molor, and removing his hearts. But the two together form one "technique", say the "heart-removal technique" {tIqDu' lelmeH tonSaw'}. That's a move-template. But as I see it, in executing it, Kahless was also carrying out a move-action (which may be a series of smaller actions). The judo lock example is a good one. A "move" can be a sequence of smaller things. Kahless stabbing and ripping out Molor's hearts is a single "move". The {tonSaw' Qav} in Kahless' fight with Molor was the {tIqDu' lelmeH tonSaw'}. (Now we're talking Mortal Kombat and not Street Fighter!)

There's also this (which comes before the above passage), showing that {moQbara'} has many {tonSaw'mey} that can be displayed,

I understand that exactly as I would understand "Wing Chun has many fighting techniques". But it would also make complete sense to me to say "Master Ip-Man finished the fight with the tan sau technique".

and that {tonSaw'} by itself can be considered plural:

Isn't the plurality thing generally true of regular Klingon nouns? Plural suffixes are optional.

maghomchuqqa'DI' SuyInbejmeH DaH moQbara' tonSaw'mey Sa'agh

(When we once again meet one another, in order that you all certainly live, now I will display the techniques of the Mokbara)

muvchuqmeH yabmaj porghmaj je muvchuqqa'meH porgh qa' je moQbara' tonSaw' DIlo'jaj

(In order for our body and our mind to join one another, in order for the spirit and the body to join one another, may we use the techniques of the Mokbara)

The plurality is indicated by the prefix {DI-} here. Is there something unusual about this? (I don't understand why you drew specific attention to the lack of plural suffix.)

I think the rest of the message about cleaning/feeding cats is mainly correct. The only thing I would add is that when we talk about having multiple items but we only end up doing something to a single one of them, {ngIq} most likely shouldn't be used and a number should be used instead ({vagh vIghro' vIghaj. wa' vIghro' vISay'moH} - "I have 5 cats. I clean a single one").

I would say it's stronger than "most likely". I think if you're doing something to one thing out of five, and not to the other four, {ngIq} Dalo'be'nIS. :-) -- De'vID

On 9 June 2016 at 04:31, qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:

馬後俥 sounds more like a strategy in western chess than a technique. I think techniques need to be more specific than simply using two pieces to threaten another piece (unless the pieces are always in the same spaces and are of the same type). In western chess, the openings are list of moves that specific pieces make. They are a set number of turns, and you end up with a very specific setup of pieces.

I feel like there's a "terminology gap" in English here. An atomic move is something like "rook moves in a straight line", or "throw a punch". A strategy would be something like "occupying the middle of the board", or "force the opponent to keep stepping back". There are things in the middle which are combinations of moves which are repeated so often that they get names. What are these called? A "tactic"? A "maneuver"? Things like "attack with these two pieces in a specific way" or "throw a punch, followed by sweep". In Chinese, the same term is used in both chess and martial arts. As a matter of fact, it's even used for "combo" when talking about Street Fighter and similar fighting games in Chinese. That term is translated often as "fighting technique" in dubbed/subbed films and literature, so mentally I have {tonSaw'} mapped to that. I'll have to ask Marc Okrand if he does any Chinese martial arts or watches or has subbed any Chinese martial arts movies the next time I see him. :-p -- De'vID