Re: [tlhIngan Hol] So sarcophagus you say ? hmm..
felix malmenbeck, bIjangtaHvIS, tlhIngan Hol Dalo'mo' jIbel. 'a 'op Doch DIpojnISbogh tu'lu'. vaj.. felix malmenbeck:
tlhInganpu' Sar law' Humanpu' Sar law' 'e' vIHar.
Initially the law'/law' construction confused me, but finally I remembered that instead of the classic law'/puS, there are alternate versions such as the law'/law'. So, in this case the meaning obviously is "klingons are as varied as the humans". The choice of the double {law'} instead of a double {puS} obviously is made to express that both klingons and humans are "varied to a great degree". Instead of "varied to a small degree", which would be the case if we had a double {puS}. felix malmenbeck:
wa' nughHom'e' motlh vay', latlh nughHom'e' motlh latlh.
This messed me up real good until I finally managed to figure it out. It must mean "as for one small society someone is usual, as for another small society another is usual". Although I still can't understand why you used {nughHom} instead of {nugh}. felix malmenbeck:
lommey meQmoH 'op. lommey meQmoH 'op.
"Some make corpses burn. Some make corpses burn". I don't understand why you wrote {meQmoH} instead of just {meQ}. Also why repeat the same sentence twice ? felix malmenbeck:
rIQwI'pu'vaD lom 'ay'Du'chaj nob HeghDI' 'e' 'Ip 'op 'ach nobQo' latlhpu' law'.
Isn't here the {law'} on the {latlhpu'} somewhat redundant ? Doesn't the {-pu'} inherently mean "many" ? So, why say {latlhpu' law'} instead of just {latlhpu'} ? felix malmenbeck:
taQ ghaH net ja'.
Is {ja'} a verb of speech ? If yes, don't the same rules apply for it, as they apply for {jatlh} ? And if yes, then how is it possible to quote what someone said, through the use of {net} ? felix malmenbeck:
*DaqS* qeng puqloD HeghmoHpu'DI' chISwI', lom meQmoHta' qeng. wa' jaj chISwI' HoH 'ej tIqDaj Sop 'e' 'Ip.
Although I have no idea who or what the {chISwI'} and the transliterated {DaqS} is, I can understand the sentence; however I can't understand why you chose {HeghmoH} over {HoH}. And I wonder too, with regards to the choice of {meQmoHta'} over a simple {meQta'}. qunnoq On 31 Jul 2017 7:25 pm, "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote: On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:11 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SKI: At a Star Trek Next Generation episode, two Klingons have died, and Picard asks the Klingon captain, what he is to do with the bodies. Then the Klingon captain replies: "They are empty vessels; treat them as such".
As a result of this scene, I don't think that Klingons would utilize elaborate sarcophaghi, in order to dispose of corpses which -according to their beliefs- are nothing more than empty shells.
Maltz did say that Klingons didn't use sarcophagi anymore. Also, I think it's important to remember that real cultures aren't totally monolithic and homogeneous, even if that's how they like to present themselves. In existing show canon, there are a number of variations on Klingon funerary practices. There's the {Heghtay}, where you hold the eyes open and scream. There's the {'aQvoH}, where you stand watch over the corpse. A "Klingon mummification glyph" is referenced in Star Trek 4, so clearly they did that at some point. And nobody held open Chancellor Gorkon's eyes after his assassination. It's not a major contradiction, but rather simply a sign that Klingons (much like, say, humans in Starfleet) are more diverse than they seem (or want to seem) to outsiders. MO has touched on this idea occasionally: acknowledging that an empire could have room for another language like Klingonaase (see http://klingonska.org/canon/ 1996-08-rt.txt), the opening to The Klingon Way describing how seemingly-contradictory proverbs can still fit in the same culture, and the whole section in KGT about the myth of Klingon conformity. _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 3:26 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Initially the law'/law' construction confused me, but finally I remembered that instead of the classic law'/puS, there are alternate versions such as the law'/law'. So, in this case the meaning obviously is "klingons are as varied as the humans". The choice of the double {law'} instead of a double {puS} obviously is made to express that both klingons and humans are "varied to a great degree". Instead of "varied to a small degree", which would be the case if we had a double {puS}.
A double {puS} construction doesn't mean "to a small degree", it means the comparison has negative connotations. {tlhInganpu' Sar puS Humanpu' Sar puS} would mean "Klingons are as varied as humans (and that's a bad thing)." Using double {law'} is a more value-neutral comparison. This messed me up real good until I finally managed to figure it out. It
must mean "as for one small society someone is usual, as for another small society another is usual". Although I still can't understand why you used {nughHom} instead of {nugh}.
I think it was intended to mean something like a subculture, a group which shares many of the cultural precepts of a larger {nugh} but has its own distinct differences from it.
Isn't here the {law'} on the {latlhpu'} somewhat redundant ? Doesn't the {-pu'} inherently mean "many" ? So, why say {latlhpu' law'} instead of just {latlhpu'} ?
{-pu'} means plural, not many. Two or three is plural, but not many.
On Monday, 31 July 2017 20:26:53 BST mayqel qunenoS wrote:
felix malmenbeck:
*DaqS* qeng puqloD HeghmoHpu'DI' chISwI', lom meQmoHta' qeng. wa' jaj chISwI' HoH 'ej tIqDaj Sop 'e' 'Ip.
Although I have no idea who or what the {chISwI'} and the transliterated {DaqS} is, I can understand the sentence; however I can't understand why you chose {HeghmoH} over {HoH}. And I wonder too, with regards to the choice of {meQmoHta'} over a simple {meQta'}.
Hov leng: logh jaQ Hut wanI' bop ghItlhpu' *Felix*. "'Iw 'Ip" 'oHpu' wanI' pong'e'. chISwI', "albino" ghap 'oHpu' wanI'vo' wa' nuv'e'. 'ej *Jadzia Dax* 'oS *DaqS*.
On 31 July 2017 at 22:47, Jeremy Silver <jp.silver@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
Hov leng: logh jaQ Hut wanI' bop ghItlhpu' *Felix*.
Note that {jaQ} doesn't mean "deep" in the sense of "deep space". The official translation of "Deep Space Nine" is {logh Hop Hut tengchaH} (from SkyBox card 99). -- De'vID
jIH:
Initially the law'/law' construction confused me, but finally I remembered that instead of the classic law'/puS, there are alternate versions such as the law'/law'. So, in this case the meaning obviously is "klingons are as varied as the humans". The choice of the double {law'} instead of a double {puS} obviously is made to express that both klingons and humans are "varied to a great degree". Instead of "varied to a small degree", which would be the case if we had a double {puS}. niqolay Q: A double {puS} construction doesn't mean "to a small degree", it means the comparison has negative connotations. {tlhInganpu' Sar puS Humanpu' Sar puS} would mean "Klingons are as varied as humans (and that's a bad thing)." Using double {law'} is a more value-neutral comparison.
maj. I didn't remember that. jIH:
Isn't here the {law'} on the {latlhpu'} somewhat redundant ? Doesn't the {-pu'} inherently mean "many" ? So, why say {latlhpu' law'} instead of just {latlhpu'} ? niqolay Q: {-pu'} means plural, not many. Two or three is plural, but not many.
I understand the grammar of {-pu'}, however I continue to believe that here the use of {law'} was redundant. Let me explain why. Suppose I write {vIghro'mey nIHpu' Humanpu'} for "humans stole the cats". True, the "humans" can be only two or three or they can be thousands. However, when someone reads the sentence his mind will form the abstract notion of "plural", without it actually focusing on a specific amount. So, here, if we only had {latlhpu'} instead of {latlhpu' law'}, the result for the reader would be the same. If we wanted to specifically express the "many others", i think it would be better to just write {latlh law'}. In this construction the meaning remains the same, without "tiring" the reader by making him read two "plurals" in a row. The only valid argument I could think of, for placing the {-pu'} on the {latlhpu' law'}, is if we wanted to specify that we are talking about beings capable of speech. But I don't think that this was the case here. Anyway, I'm not saying that the {latlhpu' law'} is wrong. I'm saying though that in my opinion, it has a sound of redundancy, let alone that it dangerously replicates the english/greek sound of "many others". It just feels too terran. qunnoq On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:58 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31 July 2017 at 22:47, Jeremy Silver <jp.silver@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
Hov leng: logh jaQ Hut wanI' bop ghItlhpu' *Felix*.
Note that {jaQ} doesn't mean "deep" in the sense of "deep space".
The official translation of "Deep Space Nine" is {logh Hop Hut tengchaH} (from SkyBox card 99).
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/1/2017 3:43 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
If we wanted to specifically express the "many others", i think it would be better to just write {latlh law'}. In this construction the meaning remains the same, without "tiring" the reader by making him read two "plurals" in a row.
I think you're really just reacting to the fact that the plural suffix is optional. I sometimes point out where plural suffixes can be dropped for stylistic reasons, but using the plural suffix is not so much redundant as explicit. I too would probably say *latlh law'* instead of *latlhpu' law'* most of the time, but I would only call this out where I feel a stylistic improvement could be made. But I disagree that *latlhpu' law'* can be reduced to *latlhpu'* without changing the meaning. Sometimes the presence or lack of *law'* may not make a difference to the overall meaning, but this won't always be true. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
using the plural suffix is not so much redundant as explicit
What does this mean ? Don't misunderstand me; I'm not contradicting you on this matter. I genuinely don't understand what this sentence means. qunnoq On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 4:38 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/1/2017 3:43 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
If we wanted to specifically express the "many others", i think it would be better to just write {latlh law'}. In this construction the meaning remains the same, without "tiring" the reader by making him read two "plurals" in a row.
I think you're really just reacting to the fact that the plural suffix is optional. I sometimes point out where plural suffixes can be dropped for stylistic reasons, but using the plural suffix is not so much redundant as explicit. I too would probably say latlh law' instead of latlhpu' law' most of the time, but I would only call this out where I feel a stylistic improvement could be made. But I disagree that latlhpu' law' can be reduced to latlhpu' without changing the meaning. Sometimes the presence or lack of law' may not make a difference to the overall meaning, but this won't always be true.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
It's a matter of style. Some examples of {law'} used with a plural suffix might help: Dujmey law' DachIjpu' You have navigated many ships. KGT (idiom) tlhIngan Dujmey law'qu' SommeyDaq batlh cha'lu' [The Imperial emblem] has been emblazoned upon the hulls of countless Klingon starships. SP1 jorwI'mey ghaymo' qarDaSnganpu', Hegh SuvwI'pu'lI' law' 'ej rIQ SuvwI'pu'lI' law' Suffer major losses after Cardassian bombing campaign. MKE tlheDDI' quvmoHmeH veng HeHDaq lutlha' SaD law' nuvpu' Thousands followed him to the edge of the city, to bid him farewell. PB {puS} "be few/several" works the same way: qagh, ro'qegh'Iwchab, targh tIq Sop 'e' lungIl Humanpu' puS Few humans dare to eat gagh, rokeg blood pie, or heart of targ. S21 veymey puS neH chenmoHlu'pu' Limited Edition. MKE ("Only a few copies have been made.") -- Voragh
-----Original Message----- From: mayqel qunenoS
SuStel:
using the plural suffix is not so much redundant as explicit
What does this mean ? Don't misunderstand me; I'm not contradicting you on this matter. I genuinely don't understand what this sentence means.
qunnoq
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 4:38 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/1/2017 3:43 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
If we wanted to specifically express the "many others", i think it would be better to just write {latlh law'}. In this construction the meaning remains the same, without "tiring" the reader by making him read two "plurals" in a row.
I think you're really just reacting to the fact that the plural suffix is optional. I sometimes point out where plural suffixes can be dropped for stylistic reasons, but using the plural suffix is not so much redundant as explicit. I too would probably say latlh law' instead of latlhpu' law' most of the time, but I would only call this out where I feel a stylistic improvement could be made. But I disagree that latlhpu' law' can be reduced to latlhpu' without changing the meaning. Sometimes the presence or lack of law' may not make a difference to the overall meaning, but this won't always be true.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 11:01 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SuStel:
using the plural suffix is not so much redundant as explicit
What does this mean ? Don't misunderstand me; I'm not contradicting you on this matter. I genuinely don't understand what this sentence means.
"Redundant" means it's extra information that you don't always need, but it's there if you want to use it. There are multiple ways to know whether a Klingon noun is intended as plural. If that information is already somewhere in the grammar of the sentence, adding the plural-marking suffix is redundant. It's not necessary, but it is fine to do it anyway. "Explicit" means it is made absolutely clear by using something you can point to and say "There, that's what I mean." If you don't want to leave something unstated, you can say it explicitly. -- ghunchu'wI'
On 8/1/2017 11:01 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
using the plural suffix is not so much redundant as explicit What does this mean ? Don't misunderstand me; I'm not contradicting you on this matter. I genuinely don't understand what this sentence means.
Just that using or not using plural suffixes is usually a matter of choice. They're nearly ALWAYS redundant to use, because they're optional, but you can use them anyway. It's not true that wherever you CAN remove plural markers you should. I think there are times where not using plural markers is nicer, but that's not the same thing as saying you SHOULD do it. *pe'vIl mu'qaDmey tIbach!* (TKW) Sure, I COULD say *pe'vIl mu'qaD tIbach,* but this is a proverb, so I'll go with the established form. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (7)
-
Alan Anderson -
De'vID -
Jeremy Silver -
mayqel qunenoS -
nIqolay Q -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel