Am 10.07.2020 um 16:09 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:

True ! In fact, the reason I've wondered about all this in the first place, is because in greek the word "information" is countable, and it would sound wrong to say "we obtained valuable information (singular)".

That's very interesting, because in German it's quite normal to say "I've got one important information (singular) here for you." but also "This book contains many informations (plural)" -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/Word/De-

Am 10.07.2020 um 17:20 schrieb SuStel:

In English, the word /data/ occupies a strange place as far as plurals go. It's a relatively late entry from Latin, where /data/ is the plural of /datum./

FYI, in German, "Datum" means "date" (as in "october 12th 1996"). The plural is "Daten", and intesting then to see that the same word "Daten" when talking about computers means "data" (the stuff stored on the hard drive, compare "Datenspeicher" to "data storage"). But, going back, there is no singular form of the things stored on a computer. (Actually, that would be the information, in singular.) It's obviously all overlapping between the languages. Very interesting how learning Klingon is leading to learning from other languages. :-) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/Word/De-

{vItlh} was apparently added to the vocabulary at the 2017 qepHom. The quote about painsticks precedes that by a few years. Likely, Okrand was giving us canon before the use of {law’} was restricted to countable objects, and this was one of those tweakings of the language that came later. Then again, since Okrand tends to keep everything canon legal, that probably means that while best practice is to differentiate between {law’} and {vItlh}, you aren’t completely wrong if you screw up and use {law’}. Tomayto/Tomahto... charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

On Jul 10, 2020, at 10:09 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

SuStel:

...

It has never been used countably. I would go with De' lo'laH wISuqpu'. Kruge says De' yIlI', not De' tIlI'. De' lI' Sovlu'DI', not De' lI' luSovlu'DI'. Vixis says De' wIHevtaH, > not De' DIHevtaH.

ok, thanks. I wasn't aware of these examples, which answer as well the next thing I was wondering, with regards to if we should write {De' law'} or {De' vItlh} for "many information". I guess {De' vItlh} would be the preferable choice, since {vItlh} "is used for things that are measurable or quantifiable, but not necessarily countable".

Although, since we have the Ca'Non example of:

{chIch vay' 'oy'moHmeH 'oy'naQ 'ul law' tlhuD 'oH} Painstiks ... emit a highly ­charged shock for the express purpose of inflicting pain. S32

... ~ Qa'yIn _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

charghwI':

Likely, Okrand was giving us canon before the use of {law’} was restricted to countable objects

I'm afraid you lost me here. How is {law'} restricted to countable objects ? When did this happen ? Doesn't the {'ul law'} demonstrate that we can use the {law'} for uncountable nouns too, even if we have been given the newer word {vItlh} ? ~ Qa'yIn

SuStel:

See this message: http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol- kli.org/2017-November/006634.html

oh, I'd totally forgotten the part where maltz says "you wouldn't use {law'} in these instances". Finally, I understand what's going on. For ease of reference, I copy-paste here in it's entirety the message from maltz: ---- For the archive: this is printed in qepHom 2017, page 17. ---- {vItlh} means "be high, great (in quantity, size, intensity)." It's used for things that are measurable or quantifiable but not necessarily countable. So you'd use it for things like speed or distance or the price of something: {Do vItlh} "high velocity," {chuq vItlh} "great range, great distance." You wouldn't use {law'} in these instances. For things you can count (like people) (as opposed to things you can measure using units of measure, like length or speed), you'd use {law'} almost all the time. But you'd use {vItlh} if the number of whatever it is you're talking about is higher than normal or greater than before or greater than what was expected. So if you were referring to a lot of warriors, you'd most likely say {SuvwI'pu' law'}. But if the high number of warriors is somehow important, if it's the point you're trying to make and not just an added fact, you'd use {vItlh}. You'd use it if you're not saying merely that there are a lot of warriors, but that the quantity of warriors is particularly high (higher than usual, higher than expected, higher than some other similar group of warriors, etc.). So it sounds like L'Rell used {vItlh} correctly in referring to the large number of people who died in battle (more than expected, more than before, etc.). Note that the exact number of warriors (or whatever) doesn't matter (and doesn't have to be stated). The idea is that the high number of warriors you're talking about is somehow noteworthy (the number of warriors who died is greater than the norm for this sort of military unit, for example). ---- ~ Qa'yIn

Am 10.07.2020 um 18:40 schrieb nIqolay Q:> This sentence also provides another example of later canon changing [...]

In the example sentence, *tlhuD* is used with electricity. (Although perhaps a jolt of electricity is close enough to radiation -- that is, a discharge of energetic particles -- that it still counts.)

That's what I thought too. I am not a physicist, but I think that [at least from aKlingon point of view] electricity pretty well fits into the idea of radiation. And even if it's not - perhabs we could accept that this is one of the things where the Klingon language just is that way as it is. Even though Okrand said "tlhuD refers to radiation only", he did not say that electricity is not part of it. The summary of all of this is that tlhuD is used with radiation and electricity. Since {rIS} is used as some kind of signal emitter, I even think using it with the painstiks would sound weird. They don't emit a signla of any kind. They shoot electricty! -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com http://klingon.wiki/Word/RIS

So, the question becomes whether {tlhuD} is a Klingon physicist’s jargon, or a common Klingon’s word that might, as in English, have a wider scope of meaning. I tend to think of radiation as, well, something that radiates. [Long philosophical ramblings deleted, being more important for me to write than for you to read.] It is interesting to think about, though. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

On Jul 10, 2020, at 1:17 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 7/10/2020 12:55 PM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:

...

Am 10.07.2020 um 18:40 schrieb nIqolay Q:> This sentence also provides another example of later canon changing [...]

...

In the example sentence, *tlhuD* is used with electricity. (Although perhaps a jolt of electricity is close enough to radiation -- that is, a discharge of energetic particles -- that it still counts.)

That's what I thought too. I am not a physicist, but I think that [at least from aKlingon point of view] electricity pretty well fits into the idea of radiation. As someone who has had some training in physics, I can tell you that electricity is not radiation, though the two are related phenomena. Electricity about is the presence and movement of electrically charged particles. Radiation is about the emission of waves or particles of all kinds. There is some overlap between the two, in that electromagnetic radiation (e.g., light) affects the electric (and magnetic) field.

...

And even if it's not - perhabs we could accept that this is one of the things where the Klingon language just is that way as it is. Even though Okrand said "tlhuD refers to radiation only", he did not say that electricity is not part of it. The summary of all of this is that tlhuD is used with radiation and electricity. I think it's more likely that the scientific terminology evolved AFTER the Klingon language, so scientific jargon may not be identical to the layman's language. We speak in quantum mechanics of waves, but the word just comes from the movement of water — which is waves, but the quantum mechanical Schrodinger Equation doesn't represent a physical object actually waving. We speak of an event horizon, even though the word horizon really refers to the point at which an object disappears around the curve of the Earth. We speak of quantum spin: even though the particle is not literally spinning, it behaves in certain ways as if it were. Scientific jargon grows out of ordinary language.

Also, Okrand is not a physicist. He's speaking in the same register as he did in The Klingon Dictionary: crudely. We have one example of 'ul tlhuD, which may mean that you can tlhuD electricity, or it may mean some writer got sloppy with scientific jargon. Maybe some Klingon scientist will push his duct-taped glasses up his ridgy nose, sniffle, and say, "ACTUALLY, people always say 'ul tlhuD, but 'ul doesn't actually get tlhuDed." We don't know.

For now, if someone says 'ul tlhuD, don't sweat it. Okrand said "radiation only," but we don't really know exactly how technically accurate that is supposed to be. tlhuD may or may not be used with electricity, and we don't have enough information to say for sure, but if someone uses it, there's no point in cracking down on it.

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

Good point. Part of speaking with authority is recognizing the absence of authority, as in this case. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

On Jul 10, 2020, at 3:55 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 7/10/2020 3:52 PM, Will Martin wrote:

...

So, the question becomes whether {tlhuD} is a Klingon physicist’s jargon, or a common Klingon’s word that might, as in English, have a wider scope of meaning. Or whether the sentence is in error. Or whether terminology has been changing since that sentence was written. Or whether the identification of tlhuD as having to do with radiation was scientifically inaccurate or imprecise. There are lots of reasons why this apparent contradiction might exist. Any speculation is done in a vacuum.

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org