missing words from kli's "new words not in the original lexicon"
The word list at kli.org, with the "new words not in the original lexicon", doesn't have {wI'qIy} and {qabpaq}. ~ bara'qa'
The first is just a borrowing, and the second is not canon even if it's well-known in the community. However, the word list appears to be missing {jaqtala'}, which was (according to a post on qabpaq) confirmed at qep'a' 2017. On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 13:08, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
The word list at kli.org, with the "new words not in the original lexicon", doesn't have {wI'qIy} and {qabpaq}.
~ bara'qa'
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
-- De'vID
De'vID:
The first is just a borrowing, and the second is not canon even if it's well- known in the community.
Even as a borrowing, since it's Ca'Non, I think it should be included too. As far as the {qabpaq} is concerned, I'm copying-pasting from my notes: "From an untranslated FaceBook post from Okrand to Andre (2/11/2014) discussing Burmese languages: Do'Ha' QIp qabpaqwIj. [bama/mIyanma] Hol mu'mey cha'be'. mI'mey neH cha'." Sadly, I haven't written in my notes, the date this message was sent in this list.. - bara'qa'
Even as a borrowing, since it's Ca'Non, I think it should be included too. As far as the {qabpaq} is concerned, I'm copying-pasting from my notes: "From an untranslated FaceBook post from Okrand to Andre (2/11/2014) discussing Burmese languages: Do'Ha' QIp qabpaqwIj. [bama/mIyanma] Hol mu'mey cha'be'. mI'mey neH cha'."
I wouldn't count that as canon. Is Dr. Okrand never allowed to just have a casual conversation without being careful that he is also making an offical canon pronouncement? So Dr. Okrand occaionally uses mu'mey ru' and mu'mey ghoQ. That doesn't make those words canon, it shows us that it's OK to use mu'mey ru' and mu'mey ghoQ. Feel free to use them. But don't expect them to appear in official dictionaries.
On 10/25/2019 9:00 AM, David Holt wrote:
I wouldn't count that as canon. Is Dr. Okrand never allowed to just have a casual conversation without being careful that he is also making an offical canon pronouncement?
His every word on the subject of Klingon has always been considered canonical. I believe it's one of the reasons he is careful about what he says to us. He doesn't usually distinguish between official pronouncement and casual conversation. He's not the one who came up with the idea of canonical Klingon, we are. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
David Holt:
I wouldn't count that as canon. Is Dr.
Okrand never allowed to just have a
casual conversation without being careful
that he is also making an offical canon
pronouncement? So Dr. Okrand
occaionally uses mu'mey ru' and mu'mey
ghoQ. That doesn't make those words
canon, it shows us that it's OK to use
mu'mey ru' and mu'mey ghoQ. Feel free
to use them. But don't expect them to
appear in official dictionaries.
I don't agree with this argument. If we accept it, then who will be the one deciding, "when okrand is speaking casually, and when he's officially creating canon" ? Perhaps, the need never appeared again for okrand to use {qabpaq}. So, how could someone dismiss it, as being "a one-time temporary word only" ? Personally, I'd expect every new word spoken by okrand to appear in official dictionaries, (if there were ever any), but with a note informing the reader, when it was said/heard/written etc. If not for any other reason, then at least for the purpose to inform someone who sees it being used by someone, to know why that person is using it to start with. ~ bara'qa'
On 10/25/2019 9:20 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
If we accept it, then who will be the one deciding, "when okrand is speaking casually, and when he's officially creating canon" ?
Precisely.
Perhaps, the need never appeared again for okrand to use {qabpaq}. So, how could someone dismiss it, as being "a one-time temporary word only" ?
A canonical word need not be a dictionary word. Klingons occasionally coin one-use words and throw them away; this practice itself is canonical. So if we accept *qabpaq* as canonical, there's still no evidence one way or the other whether this is a canonical throwaway term or a canonical "the way Klingons refer to Facebook" term. Given that in our fictional Klingon world Klingons are unlikely to know or care much about Facebook — what century is Maltz living in, anyway? — what Klingon is putting the name *qabpaq* in a dictionary? I think that, unless Facebook itself accepts a Klingon translation of its name, any translated name will be an informal one. The treatment of proper nouns in word lists has always been tricky. TKD itself is inconsistent. The dictionary proper lists planet names but not personal names. The KLI's word list has country names and ship names but not corporate names. It's not really a question of what's canonical; it's a question of what needs to go in a dictionary. Is the KLI's word list a list of canonical utterances or a list of dictionary words? -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 25.10.2019 um 15:47 schrieb SuStel:
Given that in our fictional Klingon world Klingons are unlikely to know or care much about Facebook — what century is Maltz living in, anyway? — what Klingon is putting the name *qabpaq* in a dictionary?
About this topic, I recently asked Okrand for canon translations of Star Trek movie titles. He answered that those movie titles are not part of the Star Trek universe itself, so he could not ask Maltz for a translation. But regarding the word paqbaq, we have many words that are defined as "what a Klingon would call the thing when he sees it" so staying with that, we can argue that this is what a Klingon would call facebook, so I would include it in the dictionary, because ... honestly: why not?
It's not really a question of what's canonical; it's a question of what needs to go in a dictionary. Is the KLI's word list a list of canonical utterances or a list of dictionary words?
The page itself says "The words listed here were revealed or expanded upon after the publication of TKD and KGT" so it should include everything that Okrand gives us, without asking for the reason or the context. But the page also says "The choice of what words deserve to be included in this list is up to Alan." ... which I prefer to leave uncommented :-/ -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Maltz
On 10/25/2019 10:52 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
But regarding the word paqbaq, we have many words that are defined as "what a Klingon would call the thing when he sees it" so staying with that, we can argue that this is what a Klingon would call facebook, so I would include it in the dictionary, because ... honestly: why not?
This statement is not absolute, however. "What a Klingon would call the thing when he sees it" is not the same as "what a Klingon would necessarily call the thing when he sees it." It implies that the coinage is so obvious that everyone simply coins it the obvious way, but someone /might/ call it something different. *qabpaq* is one of those obvious coinages. Other names are not so obvious. How would a Klingon translate /Instagram?/ Maybe *SIbI'De'...* or *nomnaghbeQ...* or *DowIy...* If Okrand happened to call it *DowIy,* and he acknowledges that it's just "what a Klingon might call the thing," would that be more worthy of dictionary status than the others? It would be canonical, but should not necessarily be presented as /the/ way to translate it, which is what people will think if it's on the KLI's list. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 10:52 AM Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
About this topic, I recently asked Okrand for canon translations of Star Trek movie titles. He answered that those movie titles are not part of the Star Trek universe itself, so he could not ask Maltz for a translation.
Ah, but the intro to TKW establishes the in-universe fiction that the titles of episodes, series, and movies are simply nicknames that Starfleet uses... In this report, those sayings (or references to sayings) found in the
Starfleet archives are so noted, identified by the nicknames Starfleet has given to various missions. An explanation of these identifications is found at the end of this report.
(Perhaps sharing those nicknames with non-Starfleet personnel is considered a breach of security.)
{qabpaq} is a proper name, not a word per se. We do have proper names in our canon dictionaries, but keep in mind that proper names have context, and {qabpaq} is the proper name of a corporation and a Web site on Earth in the 21st century. Most likely, it is meaningless on Qo’noS in the distant future, where the Klingons of Star Trek is set. We’ve never seen Worf pulling out his tricorder to post an image of his breakfast for all his friends and family. So, if you are writing in Klingon in a context where people know what FaceBook is, it’s fine to use {qabpaq}. If you are writing fan fiction in the Star Trek Universe, it’s probably presumptive, perhaps useful as humor, but not really something you can expect ViaCom to ever feature as a script for a future movie. Meanwhile, on the topic of new words, I’d like to express my deep appreciation for the extreme convenience of being able to update the word list in boQwI’ with a couple of screen taps, without having to manually make the entry, note the source, decide the arbitrary wording of the gloss if the one given doesn’t fit the format of the rest of the dictionary, [and in the old days, make sure to make consistent entries on the K>E and E>K sides]. I have put so much work into maintenance of the dictionaries migrated to half a dozen or so different platforms over the years, from the original WordStar file on my Commodore 128, printed on a dot matrix printer, through Palm and HandSpring databases, MS Access in Windows, Bento, and TapForms in MacOS and iOS, I feel absolutely lazy being able to just update the database in boQwI'. For all the work that goes into this great resource for us all, thank you, thank you, thank you. batlh bIvangtaHmo' qanaD. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Oct 25, 2019, at 9:20 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
David Holt:
I wouldn't count that as canon. Is Dr. Okrand never allowed to just have a casual conversation without being careful that he is also making an offical canon pronouncement? So Dr. Okrand occaionally uses mu'mey ru' and mu'mey ghoQ. That doesn't make those words canon, it shows us that it's OK to use mu'mey ru' and mu'mey ghoQ. Feel free to use them. But don't expect them to appear in official dictionaries.
I don't agree with this argument.
If we accept it, then who will be the one deciding, "when okrand is speaking casually, and when he's officially creating canon" ?
Perhaps, the need never appeared again for okrand to use {qabpaq}. So, how could someone dismiss it, as being "a one-time temporary word only" ?
Personally, I'd expect every new word spoken by okrand to appear in official dictionaries, (if there were ever any), but with a note informing the reader, when it was said/heard/written etc.
If not for any other reason, then at least for the purpose to inform someone who sees it being used by someone, to know why that person is using it to start with.
~ bara'qa'
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org>
On 10/25/2019 9:55 AM, Will Martin wrote:
{qabpaq} is a proper name, not a word per se.
Proper nouns are words. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 15:08, David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com> wrote:
Even as a borrowing, since it's Ca'Non, I think it should be included too. As far as the {qabpaq} is concerned, I'm copying-pasting from my notes: "From an untranslated FaceBook post from Okrand to Andre (2/11/2014) discussing Burmese languages: Do'Ha' QIp qabpaqwIj. [bama/mIyanma] Hol mu'mey cha'be'. mI'mey neH cha'."
I wouldn't count that as canon. Is Dr. Okrand never allowed to just have a casual conversation without being careful that he is also making an offical canon pronouncement? So Dr. Okrand occaionally uses mu'mey ru' and mu'mey ghoQ. That doesn't make those words canon, it shows us that it's OK to use mu'mey ru' and mu'mey ghoQ.
That reminds me of an incident at Saarbrücken qepHom 2011. Okrand was making an announcement about the paq'batlh, and at the end he exclaimed, {pItlh!} Then someone reminded him of something, and he said, "Oh, *{pItlhbe'}?" People started chanting {mu' chu'!} to which Okrand laughed and said/gestured "no". I don't think *{pItlhbe'} belongs in a dictionary or word list, even though Okrand did say it, because he was obviously joking. -- De'vID
Right. Everyone knows, it should have been {pItlhHa’}. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Oct 29, 2019, at 2:06 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 15:08, David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com <mailto:kenjutsuka@live.com>> wrote:
Even as a borrowing, since it's Ca'Non, I think it should be included too. As far as the {qabpaq} is concerned, I'm copying-pasting from my notes: "From an untranslated FaceBook post from Okrand to Andre (2/11/2014) discussing Burmese languages: Do'Ha' QIp qabpaqwIj. [bama/mIyanma] Hol mu'mey cha'be'. mI'mey neH cha'."
I wouldn't count that as canon. Is Dr. Okrand never allowed to just have a casual conversation without being careful that he is also making an offical canon pronouncement? So Dr. Okrand occaionally uses mu'mey ru' and mu'mey ghoQ. That doesn't make those words canon, it shows us that it's OK to use mu'mey ru' and mu'mey ghoQ.
That reminds me of an incident at Saarbrücken qepHom 2011. Okrand was making an announcement about the paq'batlh, and at the end he exclaimed, {pItlh!} Then someone reminded him of something, and he said, "Oh, *{pItlhbe'}?" People started chanting {mu' chu'!} to which Okrand laughed and said/gestured "no".
I don't think *{pItlhbe'} belongs in a dictionary or word list, even though Okrand did say it, because he was obviously joking.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Am 29.10.2019 um 19:06 schrieb De'vID:
That reminds me of an incident at Saarbrücken qepHom 2011. Okrand was making an announcement about the paq'batlh, and at the end he exclaimed, {pItlh!} Then someone reminded him of something, and he said, "Oh, *{pItlhbe'}?" People started chanting {mu' chu'!} to which Okrand laughed and said/gestured "no".
I don't think *{pItlhbe'} belongs in a dictionary or word list, even though Okrand did say it, because he was obviously joking.
Yes, and also because he immediately said "NO". It was just very clear we don't need to memorize that. PS: There's also the addition to {jIr} (ladeeda) where he said "don't write it down, it's wrong", but some people did anyway. Nevertheless, we agree about *pItlhbe'. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/QepHomSaarbrücken
People started chanting {mu' chu'!} to which Okrand laughed and said/gestured "no".
I don't think *{pItlhbe'} belongs in a dictionary or word list, even though Okrand did say it, because he was obviously joking.
For the record, I'm quite certain those chanting «mu' chu'!» were joking, too. Well, at least I was, and I think I was the loudest one. I personally think that both wI'qIy and qabpaq are worth documenting, context and all, so that people can make their own decisions. (I could see a case be made against qabpaq on the grounds that it was a [more or less] private communication; I don't think that makes it any less interesting, but it does make sharing it a bit more inteusive.) Glosses should always be treated with a hint of suspicion, anyway; words like qajunpaQ and expressions like «rut yIHmey ghom Hoch.» shouldn't be used in texts dating back to before the Hur'q invasion, and while canonical expressions like 'e'levan and raSber naH may work just fine when communicating with Terran Klingon-speakers who are part of this fairly tightly knot community, the average Klingon probably wouldn't know what you were referring to (unless those two things just happen to be really popular in the Empire). //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 7:06:27 PM To: tlhIngan-Hol Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] missing words from kli's "new words not in the original lexicon" On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 15:08, David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com<mailto:kenjutsuka@live.com>> wrote:
Even as a borrowing, since it's Ca'Non, I think it should be included too. As far as the {qabpaq} is concerned, I'm copying-pasting from my notes: "From an untranslated FaceBook post from Okrand to Andre (2/11/2014) discussing Burmese languages: Do'Ha' QIp qabpaqwIj. [bama/mIyanma] Hol mu'mey cha'be'. mI'mey neH cha'."
I wouldn't count that as canon. Is Dr. Okrand never allowed to just have a casual conversation without being careful that he is also making an offical canon pronouncement? So Dr. Okrand occaionally uses mu'mey ru' and mu'mey ghoQ. That doesn't make those words canon, it shows us that it's OK to use mu'mey ru' and mu'mey ghoQ. That reminds me of an incident at Saarbrücken qepHom 2011. Okrand was making an announcement about the paq'batlh, and at the end he exclaimed, {pItlh!} Then someone reminded him of something, and he said, "Oh, *{pItlhbe'}?" People started chanting {mu' chu'!} to which Okrand laughed and said/gestured "no". I don't think *{pItlhbe'} belongs in a dictionary or word list, even though Okrand did say it, because he was obviously joking. -- De'vID
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 8:18 AM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
The first is just a borrowing, and the second is not canon even if it's well-known in the community.
However, the word list appears to be missing {jaqtala'}, which was (according to a post on qabpaq) confirmed at qep'a' 2017.
Can you post a link to this post that confirms the spelling? All I could find was an email on this list from Felix that was a reply to Qov's story about the word where he suggests a spelling for the word, but I wasn't able to find the actual confirmation from Marc that she asked for: https://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2013/July/msg00145.html qurgh
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 16:57, qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 8:18 AM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
The first is just a borrowing, and the second is not canon even if it's well-known in the community.
However, the word list appears to be missing {jaqtala'}, which was (according to a post on qabpaq) confirmed at qep'a' 2017.
Can you post a link to this post that confirms the spelling?
All I could find was an email on this list from Felix that was a reply to Qov's story about the word where he suggests a spelling for the word, but I wasn't able to find the actual confirmation from Marc that she asked for: https://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2013/July/msg00145.html
Unfortunately, I can't find the Facebook post where the information came from. According to my notes, both the spelling of {jaqtala'} and a clarification on {mIS} came from comments on a Facebook thread by participants at qep'a' 2017. I made a commit on github <https://github.com/De7vID/klingon-assistant/pull/271/commits/1e7d56cd7e74e7954ff90a08fad540baed27c26a> to the {boQwI'} database with those two changes together, so I must have seen them both fairly close together. The clarification for {mIS} was that it referred specifically to mental confusion, as opposed to a physical mixing-up of things, and is from this thread <https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156356897295828&set=oa.10156572532083986&type=3&theater> . However, I'm unable to find any reference to {jaqtala'} in that album, though Facebook's search function apparently doesn't work on all comments. Presumably, it's buried in some thread from around that time on one of the Facebook Klingon groups. -- De'vID
ok, not that I'm loosing any sleep over it, or that I'm trying to convince anyone.. After all, that's why qeylIS created something called "personal dictionary", where we can write anything we like, without having to rely on the dictionaries of others.. Let alone the fact, that as klingons say: {Qap vay' DaneHchugh, vaj nIteb vay'vam yIchenmoH}.. So, no worries, right ? But can someone explain to me, how come {'e'levan} deserves a place in the so-called "New Klingon Words (not in the original lexicon)" dictionary, while the {wI'qIy} doesn't ? Because the mere presence of the former, with the absence of the latter, deserves a resounding "ironic", darth sidious style.. -- bara'qa'
Am 26.10.2019 um 11:38 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
But can someone explain to me, how come {'e'levan} deserves a place in the so-called "New Klingon Words (not in the original lexicon)" dictionary, while the {wI'qIy} doesn't ?
That's why I thought that this could be a mistake. {wI'qIy} is without any doubt a word that should be in the list. It is true that Okrand wrote that "it's not a Klingon word", but what he simply meant by that is that we will probably never see a Klingon working on a wiki in Star Trek. A wiki is a Terran thing. But so is {'e'levan} too, so as you say, denying one and accepting the other really makes no sense. -- Lieven L. Litaer http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Loanword http://www.klingonwiki.net/Word/WI-KIy
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 19:49, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
However, I'm unable to find any reference to {jaqtala'} in that album, though Facebook's search function apparently doesn't work on all comments. Presumably, it's buried in some thread from around that time on one of the Facebook Klingon groups.
I guess someone will have to ask Okrand at the upcoming qepHom in Saarbrücken to (re-)confirm {jaqtala'} or provide the correct spelling. While they're at it, maybe they can ask about the name of the blade weapon in the Klingon CD game which appears on the {nuH bey'}. Is it *{ghob'etlh}, *{Qob'etlh}, or *{ghab'etlh}? (The words {Hov lat}/{Hovlat} and {SoS taj}/{SoStaj} are also only spoken and not written in that game, and I'd like to know if there's a space between the individual parts of the compounds, though I suppose it probably doesn't matter.) Lieven? -- De'vID
Am 27.10.2019 um 10:39 schrieb De'vID:
I guess someone will have to ask Okrand at the upcoming qepHom in Saarbrücken to (re-)confirm {jaqtala'} or provide the correct spelling.
I'll try to remember :-)
(The words {Hov lat}/{Hovlat} and {SoS taj}/{SoStaj} are also only spoken and not written in that game, and I'd like to know if there's a space between the individual parts of the compounds, though I suppose it probably doesn't matter.)
Usually, his answer is that since Klingon is a spoken language, it doesn't matter. But since we usually only WRITE Klingon, it does matter for us, so I'll ask... :-) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Qepa
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 at 11:06, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 27.10.2019 um 10:39 schrieb De'vID:
(The words {Hov lat}/{Hovlat} and {SoS taj}/{SoStaj} are also only spoken and not written in that game, and I'd like to know if there's a space between the individual parts of the compounds, though I suppose it probably doesn't matter.)
Usually, his answer is that since Klingon is a spoken language, it doesn't matter. But since we usually only WRITE Klingon, it does matter for us, so I'll ask... :-)
Right, which is why I'm not as concerned about that as *{Qob/ghob/ghab-'etlh}. We basically know that {Hov lat} and {SoS taj} are correct, whether o not there also happens to be a lexicalised form *{Hovlat} or *{SoStaj}. But it's annoying that we don't know the name of a Klingon weapon. It's also annoying that we can't easily run the Klingon CD game to look at what the {nuH bey'} looks like any more. (Lieven will probably reply to this telling me that pictures of everything from KCD is on the KlingonWiki somewhere, but I couldn't find any.) -- De'vID
On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 1:18 PM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
Right, which is why I'm not as concerned about that as *{Qob/ghob/ghab-'etlh}. We basically know that {Hov lat} and {SoS taj} are correct, whether o not there also happens to be a lexicalised form *{Hovlat} or *{SoStaj}. But it's annoying that we don't know the name of a Klingon weapon. It's also annoying that we can't easily run the Klingon CD game to look at what the {nuH bey'} looks like any more.
This {nuH bey'}: https://hol.kag.org/page/KLL/WEAPON.TXT.html?o=DevwIW005 ? All the terms from the Star Trek Klingon CD, with their accompanying graphics, videos, and audio, are at https://hol.kag.org/page/KLL.html :) qurgh
Am 27.10.2019 um 18:17 schrieb De'vID:
(Lieven will probably reply to this telling me that pictures of everything from KCD is on the KlingonWiki somewhere, but I couldn't find any.)
True; In the wiki I'm more focussing on written information than images. But FYI I once started transcribing the audio files, but that takes a lot of time and is quite boring, since they mostly don't contain really interesting information: http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/KlingonCDnotes Most files sound like "The sound at the beginning of this word is a harsh H, not a breathy [h]. Don't say [howd], say HoD." But still, some are quite interesting, telling how to use a word. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/KlingonCD
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 at 11:06, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 27.10.2019 um 10:39 schrieb De'vID:
I guess someone will have to ask Okrand at the upcoming qepHom in Saarbrücken to (re-)confirm {jaqtala'} or provide the correct spelling.
I'll try to remember :-)
{jaqtala'} confirmed at qepHom'a' 2019. Thanks, Lieven.
(The words {Hov lat}/{Hovlat} and {SoS taj}/{SoStaj} are also only spoken and not written in that game, and I'd like to know if there's a space between the individual parts of the compounds, though I suppose it probably doesn't matter.)
Usually, his answer is that since Klingon is a spoken language, it doesn't matter. But since we usually only WRITE Klingon, it does matter for us, so I'll ask... :-)
Ditto. These are written with spaces. Also, the weapon in the {nuH bey'} is a {ghop 'etlh} ("hand sword", two words). -- De'vID
Hello list, I'd like to jump in here being the one who asked for the word for "wiki", i.e. {wI'qIy}. it is true that we are the people who invented the term of canon and definied that it's all spoken or written by Okrand. Marc Okrand sometimes makes a small mistake while speaking Klingon, and thn immediately says "oh no, that's not a word". But if somebody asks "What is the word for X?" and he answers with an entire email explaining the word, it can definitely be seen as a canon word, such as happened with the word {wI'qIy}. Saying that this word should not be in the list because it's a borrowed word, would eliminate many others, like the country names, food names and several animals. Talking about {qabpaq}, we may sure argue if that word makes sense because this was only a personal message to somebody, but still, MO did use the word. In addition, this is not really a new words, it's a compound noun that we should use. If Okrand uses a word, and even writes it down, it surely is canon. That's what we decided many years agom. By the way, the word {wI'qIy} and its spelling was published in a word list of qepHom 2017 among many others. The reason for it missing in the list seems to me that i had just been dropped by accident, because I can hardly imagine a KLI member editing the word list and decide which of the new words is canon, and which is not. Since we want to learn the language with all it has, we should also include all the words we have. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/Word/Kabpak
For those keeping track, here's Okrand's post to Lieven: (MO > LLL, 8/01/2017): Wiki in English is pronounced with stress on the first syllable, which has the same vowel sound as with or which or hit – Klingon {I} – and the second syllable is the same as English key. So it rhymes with Mickey or picky. If ‘Klingonized,’ I think it would be {wI'qIy}. It's not a Klingon word, but Klingons would use the Federation Standard word (probably pronounced in the Klingon way) for this Federation thing. I don't know if Klingons have a similar sort of thing. I'll have to see what Maltz has to say. (It's okay to forward this information – the important part is that it's not a Klingon word, but the Klingon pronunciation [and spelling] of a Federation Standard word that Klingons use from time to time. Same as {'e'levan}. N.B. "... the important part is that it's not a Klingon word, but the Klingon pronunciation [and spelling] of a Federation Standard word that Klingons use from time to time". In same way as non-Klingons in the 24th century use words like *bat'leth*, *gakh*, * mok'bara*, and *p'tak*. -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons ----------------------------------------Original Message---------------------------------------- From: Lieven L. Litaer I'd like to jump in here being the one who asked for the word for "wiki", i.e. {wI'qIy}. [...] By the way, the word {wI'qIy} and its spelling was published in a word list of qepHom 2017 among many others. The reason for it missing in the list seems to me that i had just been dropped by accident, because I can hardly imagine a KLI member editing the word list and decide which of the new words is canon, and which is not.
On 10/25/2019 10:43 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
it is true that we are the people who invented the term of canon and definied that it's all spoken or written by Okrand. Marc Okrand sometimes makes a small mistake while speaking Klingon, and thn immediately says "oh no, that's not a word". But if somebody asks "What is the word for X?" and he answers with an entire email explaining the word, it can definitely be seen as a canon word, such as happened with the word {wI'qIy}. Saying that this word should not be in the list because it's a borrowed word, would eliminate many others, like the country names, food names and several animals.
Voragh has reposted the note. Okrand didn't send an entire email explaining the word; he sent a paragraph describing how Klingon doesn't have its own word for /wiki,/ but transliterates the word we're familiar with. (He's probably playing off the idea that /wiki/ isn't an English word either, but a transliteration of a Hawaiian word, but in English it has become a word of computer jargon.) I haven't opined on whether *wI'qIy* or *qabpaq* should be on the new words list, but I did point out already that all of our word lists, including Okrand's own, are inconsistent in the treatment of proper nouns. Excluding *wI'qIy* or *qabpaq* doesn't necessarily force the exclusion of, say, *'epIl naH* or *DoyIchlan.* The problem lies in the question of what the purpose of these lists is. Is it to catalog every canonical word? Then all lists are woefully inadequate. Where is the name *Qugh* on any of these lists? Why do the names *torgh* and *matlh *appear on the KLI list but not *Qugh* or *vIqSIS**?* Or is the point of the list to provide a list of actual Klingon words? Then none of these names belong. Neither the KLI nor Okrand has ever been particularly careful about defining what should go in a list. This is something dictionary compilers have to deal with all the time. Sure, a word is known in the general population, but does everyone consider it a lexicalizable word or just a transitory one? Is it something formally recognized by grammarians or just something that pops up now and then? Language is messy and doesn't lend itself to easy categories.
Talking about {qabpaq}, we may sure argue if that word makes sense because this was only a personal message to somebody, but still, MO did use the word. In addition, this is not really a new words, it's a compound noun that we should use.
There's yer problem right there. "Should use." Okrand did not prescribe the use of *wI'qIy**;* he said it's just a Klingon pronunciation of a Federation thing that Klingons use from time to time. Okrand is describing, not prescribing.
If Okrand uses a word, and even writes it down, it surely is canon. That's what we decided many years agom.
Yes, but "canon" does not mean "should use." He gave us a very specific and emphatic warning that *wI'qIy* is /not/ a Klingon word, but a Klingon pronunciation of an English word. Again, I have not opined on whether these words /should/ be included in the word list; I am only interested in more clearly defining the issue. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 25.10.2019 um 18:03 schrieb SuStel:
Okrand did not prescribe the use of *wI'qIy**;* he said it's just a Klingon pronunciation of a Federation thing that Klingons use from time to time. Okrand is describing, not prescribing.
Im suggesting that anything from Okrand must be collected and added to the dictionary, so that everyone has the same source to learn from. Just imagine sombody writing about a {wIqI}, and somebody else says "Okrand told us write that {wI'qIy}. In my opinion, I think it's not okay that somebody "decides" over which word should be in a wordlist - especially the KLI list, which is for many people the one and only correct source for tlhIngan Hol words. If De'vID decides to add non-canon words to his boQwI', I think that's okay, as its HIS app, and he even adds a note when a word is unclear of non canon. But when Okrand writes down something, whatever it is, and he tells us this is the way to write it, I think there's no reason to argue it should be omitted from any word list, especially not the KLI's list, which really should be complete.
The problem lies in the question of what the purpose of these lists is.
The purpose is to list new words not listed in TKD.
inadequate. Where is the name *Qugh* on any of these lists? Why do the names *torgh* and *matlh *appear on the KLI list but not *Qugh* or *vIqSIS**?*
I'm not getting your point. *Qugh* is in TKD, along whith a handful of names (including *matlh*) that all do not appear in the word list. *Qugh* appeared again in KGT, accompanied by *vIqSIS*. That's why it's not on the KLI list, because that only lists words published later. I don't know why they are on that list, it could just be a simple mistake or a double entry. Still I think it's wrong to omit a word. As you said correctly, "Okrand said it's just a Klingon pronunciation of a Federation thing that Klingons use from time to time." -- So we should archive that information instead of throwing it aways just because it's not aKlingon thing we talk about. This discussion leads back to 'epIl naH, which is exactly the same, but we do not trow that away, do we? Briefly - I'm saying that anything from Okrand should be listed in a dictionary, because otherwise it will lead to the question that started the discussion: Why is it not in the list of the KLI if it's canon? -- Lieven L. Litaer http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Loanword http://www.klingonwiki.net/Word/WI-KIy
On 10/27/2019 10:41 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 25.10.2019 um 18:03 schrieb SuStel:
The problem lies in the question of what the purpose of these lists is.
The purpose is to list new words not listed in TKD.
And Okrand said *wI'qIy* is not a Klingon word.
inadequate. Where is the name *Qugh* on any of these lists? Why do the names *torgh* and *matlh *appear on the KLI list but not *Qugh* or *vIqSIS**?*
I'm not getting your point. *Qugh* is in TKD, along whith a handful of names (including *matlh*) that all do not appear in the word list.
Right. They appear in the grammatical sketch, so we know they're correct and canonical, but for some reason some proper nouns were left out of the word list. Why? What logic puts *tera'*/Earth/ in the word list but not *Qugh*/Kruge?/ What logic has the KLI put *matlh*/Maltz/ in its new words list but not *Qugh?*
Still I think it's wrong to omit a word. As you said correctly, "Okrand said it's just a Klingon pronunciation of a Federation thing that Klingons use from time to time." -- So we should archive that information instead of throwing it aways just because it's not aKlingon thing we talk about. This discussion leads back to 'epIl naH, which is exactly the same, but we do not trow that away, do we?
We should not throw away discussion about whether it's appropriate to include it. It is not obvious to me that the KLI's word list performs the same function as TKD's word list. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (11)
-
David Holt -
De'vID -
Felix Malmenbeck -
Hugh Son puqloD -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
qurgh lungqIj -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin