can we use the noun {ghom} for objects ?
We have the noun {ghom} which is given as "band, group, party". Can I use it in reference to inanimate objects, or is it to be used only for people/humanoids, etc ? Can I say {Sor ghom} for "a group of trees" ? ~ bara'qa'
On Oct 18, 2019, at 08:17, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
We have the noun {ghom} which is given as "band, group, party".
Can I use it in reference to inanimate objects, or is it to be used only for people/humanoids, etc ?
Can I say {Sor ghom} for "a group of trees" ?
If we assume that {mu'ghom} is lexicalized from {mu' ghom} (which it may not be), my guess is yes.
Although I tend to agree with Hugh, I can't help but notice that except for {mu'ghom} -- and the non-canon *{jabbI'IDghom} used on this mailing list for decades -- AFAIK all known examples of {ghom} refer to people as the English gloss "group, party, band" would imply: ghom'a' crowd mangghom army QoQ ghom group of instrumentalists, (musical) band ) (qepHom 2018) ra'ghomquv High Command Saqghom landing party SIqral bIQtIq ghom Assembly at the River Skral (PB, section title) SuvwI' ghom band of warriors (PB) tIjwI'ghom boarding party jolbogh ghom wa'DIch DamuvlaHmeH De' DaneHchugh, Se'vam yIjIHtaH Stay tuned for information on how you can be among the first to beam aboard! (STX) QujwI' ghom rav: cha'; 'aqroS: jav 2 to 6 players (MKE) Okrand includes {ghom} in a list of "groups or assemblies" of people: (HQ 4.4 p11 "Groups"): Some additional information has come to light regarding words relating to groups or assemblies. Among those words already well-known for different types of groups are: {boq} alliance (also bloc or coalition, though coalition is sometimes {boq ru'}, literally "temporary alliance"); {DIvI'} federation or organization (also association, league, union); {ghom} group or party (also band, in the nonmusical sense); … (also {ghom'a'}) crowd. Add to this list: {tlhach} faction or sect. We also have {vey} which seems to mean a set/group of (related/similar?) objects: veymey puS neH chenmoHlu'pu' Limited Edition. ("Only a few sets have been made.") MKE boSwI'vaD veyvam le' chenmoHlu' Collector's Edition. (MKE) ‘echletHom vey deck of cards (qep'a' 2018 < MKE) wa' tlhIngan QaS vey one pack of Klingon Forces [cards] (MKE) For whatever reason, {mu'ghom} is the odd man out. -- Voragh ------------------------------Original Message------------------------------ From: Hugh Son puqloD On Oct 18, 2019, at 08:17, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
We have the noun {ghom} which is given as "band, group, party". Can I use it in reference to inanimate objects, or is it to be used only for people/humanoids, etc ? Can I say {Sor ghom} for "a group of trees" ?
If we assume that {mu'ghom} is lexicalized from {mu' ghom} (which it may not be), my guess is yes.
{vey} could be a good alternative.. But the problem is, that saying {Sor vey} gives me the impression that we talk about a "package of trees". Can {vey} be used for "a group of things which aren't enclosed in a box/package/whatever" ? How would you say "a bundle of flowers" in klingon ? Perhaps this "bundle of flowers" is bound together by a ribbon or something, but even so, it's not something being enclosed in a box. - bara'qa'
No idea. The four examples of {vey} from Klingon Monopoly are all we know about it. We do have other words for bunches or groups of things: Doj batch, pile, heap, accumulation (n) DIvI' 'aH qutlh nIHlu'bogh Cheap stolen Federation goods (DSC "Will You Take My Hand?") [NON-CANON sign in the Orion market on Kronos in pIqaD & Orion letters) Dojmey mass, masses, multitude, a very large but indeterminate group of something (n) 'ej Dojmey wID - vInDa'ma' peq. He has killed many of our people. STID ("and he massacred multitudes - he slaughtered our compatriots") qoq De'wI' Dojmey botnet (computer jargon) (qepHom 2015) 'aH paraphernalia (n) {mIr} “chain” has been used for a streak or series of things: lupwI' mIr train (railroad) (n) lut mIr series (of stories, movies, etc.) (n) qaD mIr tournament (n) lujwI' mIr losing streak (n) quvHa'ghach mIr losing streak (n) QapwI' mIr winning streak (n) yay mIr winning streak (n) Also the verb {tay'} “be together, be united” seems to appear in three nouns: Hovtay' star system (n) moqtay’ bruise (n) mu'tay' vocabulary (n) As I mentioned before… I (and others) tend to use {ghom} for this sort of thing – I remember coming up with *{Hovghom) “stellar cluster” and *{wIchghom} “myth-cycle” (i.e. a particular set of myths) – but when I checked my notes earlier today I was surprised to learn that all of Okrand’s examples were for groups of people, except for {mu’ghom}. -- Voragh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: mayqel qunen'oS {vey} could be a good alternative.. But the problem is, that saying {Sor vey} gives me the impression that we talk about a "package of trees". Can {vey} be used for "a group of things which aren't enclosed in a box/package/whatever" ? How would you say "a bundle of flowers" in klingon ? Perhaps this "bundle of flowers" is bound together by a ribbon or something, but even so, it's not something being enclosed in a box.
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 1:18 PM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Can {vey} be used for "a group of things which aren't enclosed in a box/package/whatever" ?
Probably. A deck of cards {'echletHom vey} doesn't have to be in a box. It can just be sitting there on the table ready to be dealt. I think {vey} has more to do with the idea of multiple things included together as one associated whole, rather than the idea of things being in a box or container. If that's the case, {'InSong vey} would probably work fine for a set of flowers. If the flowers are different varieties, {'InSong tlhoQ} might work (a "conglomeration" is a bunch of different kinds of things brought together). Other options for something like a bouquet might be {'InSongmey tay'} "flowers together", {'InSongmey nob} "flower gift", or even something more personalized like {'InSongmey qayIrta'bogh} "flowers that I have gathered for you" (using the prefix trick). {Sor ghom} and {'InSong ghom} are probably fine until we hear otherwise from Maltz, though.
On Oct 18, 2019, at 09:44, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
except for {mu'ghom} -- and the non-canon *{jabbI'IDghom} used on this mailing list for decades -- AFAIK all known examples of {ghom} refer to people as the English gloss "group, party, band" would imply
Even if it’s non-canon, *{jabI'IDghom} is still kind of a group of people. When you talk about a “message group” in English, you’re not talking about a group of messages, but rather a group of people who exchange messages.
Klingon nouns have gender differentiated by meaning rather than convention. A noun is a being capable of using language, a body part, or Everything Else. French assigns masculine or feminine to each noun, generally making male beings masculine and female beings feminine, and neuter objects arbitrarily assigned masculine or feminine, and the gender assignment is inflexible enough that French dictionaries always show you the gender as part of the word entry for the noun. Note that in Klingon, you don’t have universal agreement over whether or not birds that can be taught to mimic speech are considered beings capable of using language, or whether computers and robots that can speak are considered beings capable of language. There are the general conventions, and then there are exceptions, like Commander Data. A Klingon speaker may very well refer to all such birds as {-mey}, yet for their own personal pet, they might refer to it as {-wI’} instead of {-wIj} and nobody is likely to pull out a ruler to rap their knuckles for their grammatical error. It’s also worth noting that Okrand doesn’t mark gender with his glosses of nouns. My vote is that if {ghom} is the group-word for trees that makes the most sense to you, then {Sor ghom} should be fine. If we get a better group-word for non-speech-being objects, then we may eventually prefer to use that, but I don’t think that {ghom} will ever be wrong. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Oct 18, 2019, at 9:08 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
We have the noun {ghom} which is given as "band, group, party".
Can I use it in reference to inanimate objects, or is it to be used only for people/humanoids, etc ?
Can I say {Sor ghom} for "a group of trees" ?
~ bara'qa' _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (6)
-
Daniel Dadap -
Hugh Son puqloD -
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
Steven Boozer -
Will Martin