Since {Soj} seems to refer to any kind of edible matter, how would Worf’s reaction to tasting prune juice be expressed in Klingon? {SuvwI' Soj}? Or maybe {SuvwI'na' Soj}? If one wanted to distinguish between {Soj} that is eaten versus drunk, would {tlhutlhmeH Soj} and {SopmeH Soj} make sense? {Soj (tlhutlh/Sop)laHbogh [vay'?]}? If one wanted to both say that a {Soj} is for drinking and it’s suitable for true warriors, would something like {Soj tlhutlhlaHbogh SuvwI'na'} make sense? Or is there a more concise/appropriate way to say this?
I think this is a case where the distinction between {SuvwI'} and {vaj} makes {vaj} the better choice. vaj Soj 'oH pIrun vIychorgh. HoS. rach. 'Iw ghoSmoH. (latlh ghoSmoH je, 'a DaH wIqelnISbe'.)` -- ghunchu'wI'
Agreed that «vaj» seems appropriate here. You might even use it on its own here: «*pIrun* vIychorgh tlhutlh vaj.» = "A warrior drinks prune juice." //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2018 2:42:27 AM To: Klingon language email discussion forum Cc: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] “A warrior’s drink” I think this is a case where the distinction between {SuvwI'} and {vaj} makes {vaj} the better choice. vaj Soj 'oH pIrun vIychorgh. HoS. rach. 'Iw ghoSmoH. (latlh ghoSmoH je, 'a DaH wIqelnISbe'.)` -- ghunchu'wI'
Thanks, loghaD, ghunchu’wI’ je. I just started reading KGT, and read the description of vaj vs. SuvwI’ not long after your replies; good timing, I guess. I might steal ghunchu’wI’’s description of pIrun naH vIychorgh (we don’t have a canon word for prune, but I would imagine it ought to have naH in it) for my next audio story, most of which takes place at a Terran restaurant. One follow-up grammar question:
vaj Soj 'oH pIrun vIychorgh.
I thought “to be” constructions like this needed a topic marker? i.e., it should be {vaj Soj ‘oH pIrun vIychorgh’e'}. Or is that a mistaken understanding?
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 9:11 PM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
vaj Soj 'oH pIrun vIychorgh.
I thought “to be” constructions like this needed a topic marker? i.e., it should be {vaj Soj ‘oH pIrun vIychorgh’e'}. Or is that a mistaken understanding?
It does, yes. ghunchu'wI' made a typo. Although perhaps he's from Morska? (But then he would have said {vaj Soj 'o pIrun vIychorgh}...
On Jun 17, 2018, at 17:42, nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 9:11 PM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
vaj Soj 'oH pIrun vIychorgh.
I thought “to be” constructions like this needed a topic marker? i.e., it should be {vaj Soj ‘oH pIrun vIychorgh’e'}. Or is that a mistaken understanding?
It does, yes. ghunchu'wI' made a typo.
Although perhaps he's from Morska? (But then he would have said {vaj Soj 'o pIrun vIychorgh}...
ghlIngan hol vIjats. heghlu'me HaQ jajvam. nuqDaq 'o puchpa'? Dujvets 'o nuq? rIn. ghewmey SuqHo'! How much of the dialect stuff in KGT is just Okrand retconning idiosyncrasies of particular performances?
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Jun 17, 2018, at 6:52 PM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
How much of the dialect stuff in KGT is just Okrand retconning idiosyncrasies of particular performances?
Much of it, but not all. Morskan was “inspired by” actors’ lack of understanding of proper pronunciation and by a couple of DS9 scriptwriters’ inventions. The variant words for things like jackets are just for flavor. Be aware that the guy on duty at the Morskan listening post was *not* mispronouncing his lines. They were written and given to him that way on purpose to hint at his being from an outlying region. — ghunchu'wI'
Am 18.06.2018 um 03:35 schrieb Alan Anderson:
Morskan was “inspired by” actors’ lack of understanding of proper pronunciation and by a couple of DS9 scriptwriters’ inventions.
Maybe in KGT, but not in the movie, which was produced two years before DS9.
Be aware that the guy on duty at the Morskan listening post was *not* mispronouncing his lines. They were written and given to him that way on purpose to hint at his being from an outlying region.
I've heard about that too. Then still... why was his words displayed on the screen still in ta' Hol? Does the Enterprise computer have an autocorrect function? ;-) haha. The screen said {Dujvetlh 'oH nuq} - so odd grammar, correct pronunciation. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/ST6
On Jun 18, 2018, at 1:50 AM, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
The screen said {Dujvetlh 'oH nuq} - so odd grammar, correct pronunciation.
I think you’re mistaking spelling for pronunciation. In the Morskan dialect, trailing {tlh} sounds like “ts”, and trailing {H} is essentially dropped. If you were to ask a Morskan how to translate “it” he’d say something that sounds like {'o}, but he would write it the same way a First City native would write {'oH}. The universal translator display apparently recognized the dialect and spelled it appropriately (though it did label the top panel “phonetic” Klingon instead of calling it “transcribed”). — ghunchu'wI'
Am 18.06.2018 um 08:41 schrieb Alan Anderson:
I think you’re mistaking spelling for pronunciation.
True, I thought this would come up while I wrote, so that's why I added the smiley, indicating that I was not so serious about all of it.
In the Morskan dialect, trailing {tlh} sounds like “ts”,
Yes, indeed. So probably the computer correctly interpreted the words and recognized the accent/dialect of the speaker. And the computer did not add the missing -'e' bec ause it was not spoken, of course.
though it did label the top panel “phonetic” Klingon instead of calling it “transcribed”.
Yes, that happens so often. People often ask me to write Klingon phonetically and I wonder what exactly they want. And they're disappointed when I give them an IPA sample. :-D -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Dialects
On 6/18/2018 6:15 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 18.06.2018 um 08:41 schrieb Alan Anderson:
In the Morskan dialect, trailing {tlh} sounds like “ts”,
Yes, indeed. So probably the computer correctly interpreted the words and recognized the accent/dialect of the speaker. And the computer did not add the missing -'e' bec ause it was not spoken, of course.
Then why did the computer display the unpronounced *H*? We know Okrand intended the Morskan to speak with a dialect; I don't know if we know that he intended every aspect of the actor's pronunciation. Maybe the dropped *-'e'* was intentional, but the pronunciation of *tlh* and dropping of final *H* was not. Or some combination of that. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 18.06.2018 um 15:52 schrieb SuStel:
Then why did the computer display the unpronounced *H*?
Because the computer has a Klingon language database in the UT and identified the sound {'o} as {'oH}, knowing that anything else would not make sense. It's like speech recognition software: say "viyeo" and it'll type "video". This is all just fun and theory. Don't bother. :-)
pronunciation. Maybe the dropped *-'e'* was intentional, but the pronunciation of *tlh* and dropping of final *H* was not. Or some combination of that.
Yes, I'm sure it was a mix of both, but we don't know. What I do know is that Okrand had prepared this following phrase for Into Darkness, but it was not used in the movie. It was displayed in the documentary "Credited as Conlangers". {mijatsme'chogh, vaj Hegh gha'e'.} The lower case "eye" is not a typo. In his additional pronunciation guide, he clearly described it as "ee". -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/CreditedAsConLangers
On Jun 18, 2018, at 10:16, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
{mijatsme'chogh, vaj Hegh gha'e'.}
The lower case "eye" is not a typo. In his additional pronunciation guide, he clearly described it as "ee".
Is this {mujatlhbe'chugh, vaj Hegh ghaH'e'.}? That’s the closest thing that makes sense to me, but it does make me curious why {u} takes an allophone [i] in {mi-} and [o] in {-chogh}.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
Is this {mujatlhbe'chugh, vaj Hegh ghaH'e'.}? That’s the closest thing that makes sense to me, but it does make me curious why {u} takes an allophone [i] in {mi-} and [o] in {-chogh}.
Maybe the sound change is based on the surrounding sound environment, or perhaps the prefix or suffix also changed as well. (I'm always interested in learning more about Klingon dialects, variations, and changes... maybe someone could ask about it at the qep'a'?)
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
Is this {mujatlhbe'chugh, vaj Hegh ghaH'e'.}? That’s the closest thing that makes sense to me, but it does make me curious why {u} takes an allophone [i] in {mi-} and [o] in {-chogh}.
The phrase is originally {bIjatlhbe'chugh, vaj Hegh ghaH'e'} "Speak or he dies!" -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/CreditedAsConLangers
On Jun 18, 2018, at 14:54, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
Is this {mujatlhbe'chugh, vaj Hegh ghaH'e'.}? That’s the closest thing that makes sense to me, but it does make me curious why {u} takes an allophone [i] in {mi-} and [o] in {-chogh}.
The phrase is originally {bIjatlhbe'chugh, vaj Hegh ghaH'e'} "Speak or he dies!"
Yeah, ghunchu'wI' pointed it out too, I forgot to try thinking of the {m} as a {b}; {bIjatlhbe'chugh} makes more sense than {mujatlhbe'chugh}.
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/CreditedAsConLangers _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Jun 18, 2018, at 11:21 AM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
On Jun 18, 2018, at 10:16, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
{mijatsme'chogh, vaj Hegh gha'e'.}
The lower case "eye" is not a typo. In his additional pronunciation guide, he clearly described it as "ee".
Is this {mujatlhbe'chugh, vaj Hegh ghaH'e'.}? That’s the closest thing that makes sense to me, but it does make me curious why {u} takes an allophone [i] in {mi-} and [o] in {-chogh}.
The first syllable is obviously a variant pronunciation of {bI-}. — ghunchu'wI'
va, HIbuSHa'. I now see that ghunchu'wI' did already address the issue of the written form versus the spoken. reH jagh yIbuStaH. QeS 'utlh
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 at 07:50, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
The screen said {Dujvetlh 'oH nuq} - so odd grammar, correct pronunciation.
This isn't surprising. Here in Switzerland, when they speak Swiss German and I have the (High) German subtitles switched on, the subtitles "fix" the Swiss German to High German spelling (and sometimes even replaces vocabulary!) but mostly keep the grammar as spoken. -- De'vID
ghItlhpu' ghunchu'wI', jatlh:
Be aware that the guy on duty at the Morskan listening post was *not*
mispronouncing his lines. They were written and given to him that way
on purpose to hint at his being from an outlying region.
jang Quvar, jatlh:
I've heard about that too. Then still... why was his words displayed on
the screen still in ta' Hol? Does the Enterprise computer have an
autocorrect function? ;-) haha.
The screen said {Dujvetlh 'oH nuq} - so odd grammar, correct pronunciation.
Something that nobody seems to have mentioned is that because this is a display on a computer, this could very well just be a transcription of written Klingon from the ship's database. Okrand says explicitly in TKD that "[t]here is a native writing system for Klingon (called {pIqaD}) which seems to be well suited to the various dialects". In what way the writing system is "well suited" to dialectic forms is not explained, but it leaves me in very little doubt that regardless of how Morskans pronounce the ta' Hol word for "gladst", in pIqaD they'd presumably still spell it tlhay-'at-tlhay. QeS 'utlh
On Jun 19, 2018, at 00:56, Rhona Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com> wrote:
Something that nobody seems to have mentioned is that because this is a display on a computer, this could very well just be a transcription of written Klingon from the ship's database. Okrand says explicitly in TKD that "[t]here is a native writing system for Klingon (called {pIqaD}) which seems to be well suited to the various dialects". In what way the writing system is "well suited" to dialectic forms is not explained, but it leaves me in very little doubt that regardless of how Morskans pronounce the ta' Hol word for "gladst", in pIqaD they'd presumably still spell it tlhay-'at-tlhay.
Perhaps it’s as simple as the writing system encoding phonemes rather than allophones (even if a particular phoneme has collided completely with another one such that a particular dialect no longer distinguishes between the two), much in the same way that in English, we always write “wh” at the beginning of question words that start with that sound regardless of how our particular dialect produces it. Or how speakers of dialects that produce words like “glottal” with a glottal stop instead of a /t/ still write a ”t”. Or perhaps it’s because pIqaD isn’t a phonetic system at all. I don’t remember where I read this, but wasn’t there something along the lines of “little is known about pIqaD, except that it is not an alphabet” somewhere? Maybe in TKD itself? Of course, the KLI pIqaD is precisely an alphabet, but perhaps that wasn’t Okrand’s intention. Written Chinese, being an logographic system, is “well suited” to representing a whole family of spoken languages whose spoken forms are mutually unintelligible. Anyway, yeah, I expect that {qab} and {qam} are spelled distinctly in written form even when tricks like “nach qam” and “'uS qam” are needed to distinguish them in speech, in much the same way we spell homophones differently in English, often for historical reasons, but nevertheless it does encode a difference that is evident in written, if not spoken English.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 8:08 AM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
Or perhaps it’s because pIqaD isn’t a phonetic system at all. I don’t remember where I read this, but wasn’t there something along the lines of “little is known about pIqaD, except that it is not an alphabet” somewhere? Maybe in TKD itself? Of course, the KLI pIqaD is precisely an alphabet, but perhaps that wasn’t Okrand’s intention. Written Chinese, being an logographic system, is “well suited” to representing a whole family of spoken languages whose spoken forms are mutually unintelligible.
Okrand discusses it a little here: http://klingonska.org/canon/1997-10-17-news.txt I do feel like the stuff about how pIqaD wasn't an alphabet was just to provide a bit of cover for the fact that the pIqaD seen on various displays in the series is just gibberish, similarly to how a lot of the gibberish from TNG and DS9 was just shoved into a closet labelled "no' Hol" but with no further analysis. Maybe the alphabetic system seen in Discovery is a simpler version that was only used in certain contexts, or that fell into disuse at some point.
participants (8)
-
Alan Anderson -
Daniel Dadap -
De'vID -
Felix Malmenbeck -
Lieven L. Litaer -
nIqolay Q -
Rhona Fenwick -
SuStel