“If/when it's appropriate, you could also make use of {-Hom}.” Indeed. From the Hallmark BOP commercial (1994): GOWRON: vaj malopmeH tlhIHvaD nob SaSuqpu'. tlhIngan toQDujHom 'oH. So to celebrate, I've gotten you all a gift. It's a Klingon Bird-of-Prey ornament. CREWMAN 1: toQDujna' rurchu'! It looks so real! CREWMAN 2: Qapqu' wovmoHbogh janHommey! It even has working lights! Voragh From: Ed Bailey On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 11:46 AM Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de<mailto:levinius@gmx.de>> wrote: Okrand's words: ------ There's no noun Maltz is aware of like "miniature" (small model or version of something). {machqu'} is fine, but if you want to avoid it, you could use the verb {nu'} which means something like "be particularly small" and is often used of things that are smaller than the usual or expected size. In general, things that are {nu'} are smaller than those that are {mach} or even {machqu'} — but there's no hard line or specific rule. If/when it's appropriate, you could also make use of {-Hom}. ------ lI' mu'vam chu': PicardvaD jatlh Lily <DujmeylIj nu' Daghorpu'> ~mIp'av

mIS botmeH «jajlo’ Qa’Hom» jatlhlaH vay’. ‘e’ Harlu’ Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 1, 2019, at 12:40, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 17:46, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote: The most interesting word certainly is {nu'}. To show the difference: a {targhHom} is just a small targ,

That doesn't seem right. A {Qa'Hom} is not a small {Qa'}, but another species entirely.

...

but a {targh nu'} can only refer to a "toy targ".

What about something like a "miniature poodle"? Is that a {*poodle* nu'}?

...

After I asked for atoms, this was the answer:

What do you mean by "asked for atoms"?

-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

So are you saying a kitten wouldn't be a vIghro'Hom? I assumed it would, and a baby/not-full-grown targ would be a targhHom, etc., by analogy with loDHom and be'Hom, I suppose. -QISta' On Mon, Apr 1, 2019, 11:08 qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 12:40 PM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 17:46, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:

...

The most interesting word certainly is {nu'}. To show the difference: a {targhHom} is just a small targ,

That doesn't seem right. A {Qa'Hom} is not a small {Qa'}, but another species entirely.

I agree. {targhHom} is NEVER just a "small targ", that would be {targh mach}. A {targhHom} is a creature like a targ, but less like a targ than a targ normally is. A {DujHom} isn't just a small ship, it's a different kind of ship.

...

...

but a {targh nu'} can only refer to a "toy targ".

What about something like a "miniature poodle"? Is that a {*poodle* nu'}?

I'd thing so. From Okrand's description of {nu'} is just refers to something that is very small and is simply a synonym for {machqu'}.

Is that "toy targ" as in a plastic one a kid plays with? For that I'd use {targh velqa'}, with {targh velqa' nu'} for some kind of miniature targ that might be used in a table top game.

qurgh _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

Am 02.04.2019 um 03:08 schrieb qurgh lungqIj:

No, I think a kitten is a {vIghro'Hom}, because a kitten isn't just a "small cat" {vIghro' mach}, it's a lesser form of a cat. :)

{-Hom} never means "small" by itself, there's always something else involved as well.

This is only partially true; you should remember how it's described in TKD, indicating that size can also be a possibility: ------------- TKD 3.3.1: This suffix indicates that what the noun refers to is BIGGER, more important, or more powerful than it would be without the suffix. [...] This is the opposite of the augmentative suffix. It indicates that what the noun refers to is SMALLER, less important, or less powerful than it would be without the suffix. ------------- (capitalized emphasis added) That means that both sides are right: Words like {be'Hom} do not refer to size only, but words like {bo'DaghHom} prove that a simple size comparison can make sense too. I guess that from the Klingon point of view, there is no problem anyway. A native speaker recognizes the context, and knows the words. Think of the German word {Mädchen} for "girl". This is derived from {Magd} "woman" plus diminutve suffix {-chen}, but everyone knows it means "girl", not "short woman". Also, when talking about mammels in biology, the word "Männchen" is derived from {Mann} "man, male" plus diminutve suffix {-chen}, but everyone knows it means "male", not "short man". On the other hand, the German suffix {-chen} can be attached to any word in German, and depending on context, it can simply mean "small version of something". -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Type1NounSuffixes

Last year at Oshkosh, I saw a miniature replica of a B-17 bomber. Meanwhile, it was 1/3 scale and it flew. Not as a remotely controlled model. A guy sat in it and flew it. The original had a crew of 9 or 10. This one had a crew of one. The real aircraft is “double decker”, meaning that the pilots sit at one level and the bombardier sits forward and lower than the pilot and copilot, but in the 1/3 version, the pilot sits at the bottom of the fuselage and his head is up where the cockpit would be. The four radial engines are for large RC models. It took 16 years to build, and the builder/owner doesn’t have a multi-engine rating and is too old and not in good enough shape to pass the physical to get that rating, so the copilot for the “Miracle on the Hudson” flew it for him. Anyway, it’s a replica, but it’s not tiny, and since he didn’t have his own B-17 to go by, he designed it by scaling UP a much smaller plastic model, so it’s really an oversized replica of a miniature replica… … making it really hard to figure out what to call it in Klingon, even with this new vocabulary… charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

On Apr 1, 2019, at 4:34 PM, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:

Am 01.04.2019 um 19:07 schrieb qurgh lungqIj:> I agree. {targhHom} is NEVER just a "small targ", that would be {targh

...

mach}. A {targhHom} is a creature like a targ, but less like a targ than a targ normally is.

Okay; If so, that animal would probably still have the size of somekind of animal (dog, cat size, whatever).

A {targh nu'} otoh would have the size of an ant.

...

A {DujHom} isn't just a small ship, it's a different kind of ship.

True. But you would never fly in a {Duj nu'}.

...

I'd thing so. From Okrand's description of {nu'} is just refers to something that is very small and is simply a synonym for {machqu'}.

No, it sure is lots smaller than just {machqu'}. But I will forward these questions.

...

Is that "toy targ" as in a plastic one a kid plays with? For that I'd use {targh velqa'}, with {targh velqa' nu'} for some kind of miniature targ that might be used in a table top game.

Yes, true. All of those meanings seem to overlap.

Since {velqa'} means replica, theoretically it can refer to the 1:1 replica. A {velqa' mach} is a small replica, and a {velqa' nu'} is a miniature replica.

-- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/MiniaturWunderland _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 1:08 PM qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:

I agree. {targhHom} is NEVER just a "small targ", that would be {targh mach}. A {targhHom} is a creature like a targ, but less like a targ than a targ normally is. A {DujHom} isn't just a small ship, it's a different kind of ship.

I think the accepted usage of *-Hom *and *-'a'* by some Klingonists is stricter than what's implied by canon. While *-Hom* can connote a different sort of thing from the noun without *-Hom*, this isn't always the case. In some cases, a noun with *-Hom* refers to something that is presumably the same class as the noun without *-Hom*. A *bo'DaghHom* is just a small scoop, for instance, not an entirely different utensil. A *SuSHom* is a less intense *SuS*, rather than some distinct weather phenomenon that's not quite the same as a volume of moving air in the sky. A *naQHom* is just a small stick. In paq'batlh, it's used to translate a derogatory use of "mere":

*veqlargh qa'pu'wI' 'avwI' Dutojta' ghotHom jubbe'*

*Fek'lhr! Guardian of my souls, You have been outwitted By a mere mortal!*

(Book paq'raD, canto 5, lines 4-6, page 109) The mortal in question (Kahless) is still a *ghot*, but Kotar considers him to be a less important or less powerful *ghot*. There's a bit of canon explanation that's somewhat relevant: http://klingonska.org/canon/1999-12-holqed-08-4-b.txt

Qov's suggestion, /QelHom/, consisting of /Qel/ "doctor" plus the diminutive suffix /-Hom/, is also an acceptable form (and is an excellent illustration of the diminutive suffix -- the word means "not quite a doctor" or "lesser doctor" or the like).

Okrand's phrasing here suggests that while *-Hom* can mean "not quite an X", it can *also* mean "lesser X", something that is still an X but in some lesser way. In other words, there's no specific category distinction. *targhHom* could mean "not quite a targ" (some kind of similar, but different, species), but also "lesser targ" (a targ that is in some way lesser than other targs but still nonetheless a targ). Unlike *DujHom*, *Qa'Hom*, and other *-Hom* words with specific dictionary entries, we don't have a specific translation implying one interpretation. It also doesn't help that English has many more words than Klingon, making it easier to provide different glosses for a noun with and without *-Hom*, giving the impression that the two words have some fundamental distinction. Would Klingons conceive of a *QelHom* as being something necessarily distinct from a *Qel*? Or is that simply an artifact of trying to use Klingon terminology to describe the hierarchy of Federation medical personnel, in which "nurse" and "doctor" are distinct concepts, implying different levels of training, authority, and duties? (The fact that the rest of the message is about other translations of "nurse" suggests the latter.) There are clearly some nouns which seem to have idiomatic connotations when used with *-Hom* or *-'a'*, beyond simply the idea of "smaller, less important, or less powerful" described in TKD. The use of *-Hom* in *DujHom* *shuttlecraft* seems to not only imply a smaller size but also the idea of being carried by a larger *Duj*. But I'm not sure these idioms are necessarily generalizable. (I suppose it's also possible that there's no idiom here at all, that *DujHom* is perfectly legitimate for "small ship", and that the gloss "shuttlecraft" is simply an example of the size of a spacefaring *DujHom* rather than also implying the other connotations of the English term "shuttlecraft", such as being carried on a larger ship. *'ach DaHjaj DoSvetlh vItlha'be'.*)

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 9:43 PM qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:

This is always the case. My statement wasn't that {-Hom} always creates some new, seperate, concept, it's that {-Hom} never means just "small" by itself. There has to be more to it.

There *can* be more to it, and often is, but I don't see anything that suggests there *has* to be more to it. For some nouns, *-Hom* might suggest things besides size, because they're the sort of noun that has a lot of "variables". For example, words referring to living things not only have size, but also maturity as a characteristic distinct from size. In this case, it might be preferable to use *mach* instead of *-Hom* if you mean "small", because there are other aspects of the noun that could be "lessened" that you don't intend to. On the other hand, some nouns are just mundane objects, and size might be the only variation among them. Like these two: A {bo'DaghHom} could be a "serving spoon" instead of a just a small

ladle-like scoop, or it might be a specific Klingon utensil we don't know about get.

It's just translated as "small scoop" in KGT (and *bo'Dagh'a'* is translated as "big scoop"). In this case, it seems clear that *-Hom* just means "small" by itself. Scoops don't really vary in terms of importance or intensity or maturity. They're just scoops.

A {naQHom} is a "twig", not a just "small stick".

A *naQHom* is mentioned in KGT as the small stick you hit an *'In* with. It's just a small stick. A twig would be a *naQHom*, but not all *naQHommey* are twigs. Like I said earlier, I think part of this issue is because it's easier to give different English glosses for words with *-Hom* on the end, giving the impression that there's some underlying conceptual difference. A *DoQmIv* is a basin or container for holding water <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh5vM-jDFRs&feature=youtu.be&t=46s>, and a *DoQmIvHom* is a small basin or container for holding water. But since *DoQmIv* was originally glossed as "sink" and *DoQmIvHom* was glossed as "something like a bucket", we start associating *-Hom* with the differences between a sink and a bucket (not fixed in place, no faucets, no drain), rather than understanding "bucket" as an example of the size of a thing that is a *DoQmIvHom*.

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 2:27 PM Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:

...

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 9:43 PM qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net <mailto:qurgh@wizage.net>> wrote:

This is always the case. My statement wasn't that {-Hom} always creates some new, separate, concept, it's that {-Hom} never means just "small" by itself. There has to be more to it.

Am 02.04.2019 um 17:37 schrieb nIqolay Q:

...

There /can/ be more to it, and often is, but I don't see anything that suggests there /has/ to be more to it.

I'm sorry to contradict qurgh, but if we decide to stick to the literal explanation of TKD, it clearly says that these suffixes can refer to size without "more to it":

Don't be sorry! :D Contradiction leads to interesting conversations.

TKD, chapter 3.3.1: This suffix [-'a'] indicates that what the noun refers to is bigger, more important, or more powerful than it would be without the suffix.

But none of the example use the word "big" or "large". Okrand had a chance to use simple scale words like "big" and "small", but instead uses "major", "strong", and "ultimate", all of which imply something more than *just* a increase in scale/size. A "strong wind" is one that can blow you over, or knock over a tree, there's more than scale change here. A "major blunder" is one really big deal. It's not just a "big" blunder, it's a "major" blunder. This is a change in size, but it's more than just "big". "Ultimate power" is more than just "big power" or "a lot of power", it's the "ultimate" power. It's all the power in the world, again this is more than just "big" One must take into consideration the examples as well as the text. They are the actual Klingon canon after all and rules taken out of context could be misleading (not suggesting you are trying to do that, just that is can happen).

[-Hom] [...] indicates that what the noun refers to is smaller, less important, or less powerful than it would be without the suffix.

But Okrand doesn't use the word "small" in any of his examples. They are all more than *just* small: A "wisp of air" is something you can barely feel, if anything it's closer to {nu'} air than {mach}. A "temporary peace" has nothing to do with size, but duration.

Listing items in an OR-sentence with commas, means "smaller OR less important OR less powerful". So the possibility of "smaller" works without anything more.

That is even confirmed on page 152 of KGT: [...] the noun suffix {-Hom,} a diminutive that adds a meaning of smallness or lack of importance (compare {taj} ["knife"] and {tajHom} ["little knife," the extra small blade in the handle of a <d’k tahg> knife]).

Again, it says "smallness" OR "importance", not both.

So basically, in addition to the idea of a different meaning (as be'Hom etc), these suffixes can certainly also be used to mean something that's just smaller/bigger than the standard noun

See, this is where I interpret the English differently from you. I interpret the list of "or"s as examples of different ways of looking at the same thing (same with "adds a meaning of smallness and/or lack of importance"). Like how {ghoS} can mean "approach" or "go away from" or "proceed" or "come" or "follow (a course)" depending on the context, or {-Daj} can mean "his" or "her" or "its". For me, {-Hom} and {-'a'} mean all the things listed, with some objects leaning more toward one of the meanings than the other depending on context, but when I read a word like {naQHom} I think of it as a {naQ} that can be smaller, and/or less important, and/or less powerful. It can be one, it can be all. Based on the examples in TKD, and KGTs "meaning of smallness", it seems like if there is just a change in size, then the change is more than what {tIn/mach} can do by themselves. The {tajHom} on a {Daqtagh} aren't *just* small knives, they are tiny mini-blades. {SuSHom} is a tiny "wisp of air". {woQ'a'} is "ultimate power". Ultimately, this is my point: {-Hom} doesn't equal {mach}, and {-'a'} doesn't equal {tIn}, there is much more to the suffixes than those two words. qurgh

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 3:13 PM qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:

But none of the example use the word "big" or "large". Okrand had a chance to use simple scale words like "big" and "small", but instead uses "major", "strong", and "ultimate", all of which imply something more than *just* a increase in scale/size.

A "strong wind" is one that can blow you over, or knock over a tree, there's more than scale change here. A "major blunder" is one really big deal. It's not just a "big" blunder, it's a "major" blunder. This is a change in size, but it's more than just "big". "Ultimate power" is more than just "big power" or "a lot of power", it's the "ultimate" power. It's all the power in the world, again this is more than just "big"

A "wisp of air" is something you can barely feel, if anything it's closer

to {nu'} air than {mach}. A "temporary peace" has nothing to do with size, but duration.

None of those nouns really describe things that have a physical size in the first place, so *mach* and *tIn* probably wouldn't apply anyway. *SuS* might have size in the sense of the area of ground it covers, perhaps. The idea that *SuS'a'* implies wind strong enough to knock a person or tree over isn't in the text (and the difference between wind that can knock over a tree and wind that can't *is* just a scale change). What would be the difference between a "major blunder" and a "big mistake"? I think you may be reading too much into the words used in the examples. Saying that a *SuSHom* would be closer to *nu'* than *mach* appears to be entirely based on your own interpretation of the word "wisp". Again, it's as if you're looking at the English glosses of a word without *-Hom* and the word with *-Hom* and assuming that all the different connotations of those English glosses carry over to the Klingon, as if they were specific *definitions* instead of just examples of how one might translate such a concept.

but when I read a word like {naQHom} I think of it as a {naQ} that can be smaller, and/or less important, and/or less powerful. It can be one, it can be all.

So you're saying *naQHom* can mean a *naQ* that is smaller, but not less important or less powerful. That's what "and/or" means.

Ultimately, this is my point: {-Hom} doesn't equal {mach}, and {-'a'} doesn't equal {tIn}, there is much more to the suffixes than those two words.

*-Hom* isn't synonymous with *mach* and no one said it was. *-Hom* can refer to diminutive aspects of things besides size (such as importance). But *mach* *is* one of the notions that can be expressed with *-Hom*, and there are examples (*bo'DaghHom, naQHom*) where it appears to be the *only* notion expressed with *-Hom*.

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019, 3:57 PM nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:

Again, it's as if you're looking at the English glosses of a word without *-Hom* and the word with *-Hom* and assuming that all the different connotations of those English glosses carry over to the Klingon, as if they were specific *definitions* instead of just examples of how one might translate such a concept.

I'm not doing this. In fact I go the other way. I search for English glosses that might match the Klingon after I read it and think about what it might be, but I know that those are just guesses. The meaning of the word to an actual Klingon maybe very different from what any Human thinks. but when I read a word like {naQHom} I think of it as a {naQ} that can be

...

smaller, and/or less important, and/or less powerful. It can be one, it can be all.

So you're saying *naQHom* can mean a *naQ* that is smaller, but not less important or less powerful. That's what "and/or" means

Yes. I never said it couldn't. I just believe that if it is smaller, it's not in a way that {mach} would describe it. It's smaller in a "lesser" sense and not just plain old normal "small". There is a difference between a {naQHom} and a {naQ mach}. It might be hard to tell at times, but it's there. The other issue is that small and big are subjective. What is small or big to you may not be to me. -Hom and -'a' are not subjective. Something that is -Hom is -Hom no matter who is speaking.

...

Ultimately, this is my point: {-Hom} doesn't equal {mach}, and {-'a'} doesn't equal {tIn}, there is much more to the suffixes than those two words.

*-Hom* isn't synonymous with *mach* and no one said it was. *-Hom* can refer to

Yes they did. Lieven started off by saying that {targhHom} just means "small targ". I disagreed, because {targh mach} is just a "small targ". A {targhHom} is different from a {targh mach} based on {loDHom} and {be'Hom} not being "small man" and "small girl". Following that pattern a {targhHom} should be a young targ. diminutive aspects of things besides size (such as importance). But *mach*

*is* one of the notions that can be expressed with *-Hom*, and there are examples (*bo'DaghHom, naQHom*) where it appears to be the *only* notion expressed with *-Hom*.

I choose to believe that it isn't the only notion expressed, that there is more too it, but that we don't always have enough information to accurately describe the difference. qurgh

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 3:39 PM Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:

*nu’qu’ teeny tiny, teensy weeny, itsy bitsy, etc.

Voragh

bIQ 'och Sal voDchuch nu'qu' net jal. ~mIp'av