On 5/30/2019 2:14 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:

SuStel:

...

You may find that many people's email clients will turn >>>, or any number of right angle brackets, at the beginning of a line into quoted text.

So, this is good, right ?

Ah, I see how that was misunderstood. When I say quoted text, I mean quoted by your email client as if it's the message you're replying to. Basically, a mail client that does this won't print the >>>. Instead, it'll print that line as if it was an email you were replying to. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 5/30/2019 2:25 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:

jaSHa', vangpu' QIn nIqHomlIj, QIn wa'DIch cha'taHvIS ? Did your email client did this, while it was processing the original post ?

HIja'. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 5/30/2019 2:37 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:

^^^ quotation ^^^ vIlo' net jalchugh, vaj chay' vang QIn nIqHommeyvam jay' ?

If I used ^^^ quotation ^^^ then how would it be handled from these g** d** email clients ?

QIn nIqHomvaD qay'be', 'ach SoQ ngaSmeH DeghvaD moH. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 5/30/2019 2:48 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:

~~~ quotation ~~~ vIlo' net jalchugh ?

'IHbe' Hoch ngutlhmey motlhHa' 'e' vIchov. Punctuation has standardized the way it has largely for legibility reasons: established punctuation is established because it looks and reads better. If you choose nonstandard punctuation you'll be understood, but it'll inevitably look jarring. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 5/30/2019 3:29 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:

Suppose I write:

{12 jatlh A < 1 > 13 ghIq jatlh B < 2 >.}

Won't the {> 13 ghIq jatlh B <} be distorted ?

You're not going to start a line with closing quotation mark, whatever character you use for it. An email client will only interpret > as a reply quotation if it comes after a new-line character or sequence. It doesn't do this in the middle of lines. Line wrap doesn't count as a new line. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

maj; 'ay' loS vImughta'DI', wI'qIy turwI'Daq mughlI'ghach vIchel. ok, as soon as I complete the fourth chapter, I will add it to the wiki. ({-Daq} chutmo', {wI'qIy turwI'} mu'mey vIlghItlhta'..) (I wrote "the wiki server" because of the {-Daq} rule..) chut taQ.. 'a chutna' 'oH.. strange rule.. but a rule nevertheless.. chut wIpabnISbejbogh 'oH.. a rule which we need to obey.. DaH nujwIj vISoQmoH jay'. I will shut up now. ~ m. qunen'oS woe unto you scribes and pharisees

On Jun 1, 2019, at 14:55, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:

...

On Jun 1, 2019, at 13:43, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

({-Daq} chutmo', {wI'qIy turwI'} mu'mey vIlghItlhta'..)

chut DarIchbogh yIngu'. chutvam vISovbe'bej. qatlh yapbe' «wI'qIyDaq»?

«wI'qIy turwI'Daq» bIjatlhDI', De'wI' ghom qach Da'el rItlh naQ Da'uchtaHvIS 'e' vIjal.

toH, jIyajchoHlaw'. chut mungHey' vISampu': http://klingonska.org/canon/1998-03-23a-news.txt mu' «turwI'» DachelDI', ghu' DatI'be'law'. chaq mIt «wI'qIyvaD mu'mey vImughlI'bogh vIchel», 'a nuq 'oS «chel» 'e' vISovbejbe'.

Am 02.06.2019 um 09:32 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:

Since a server *is* a physical location, it *does* satisfy the {-Daq} rule.

But why don't you just say {wI'qIyDaq}? It is a location, even though not physical.

Hugh:

...

'a nuq 'oS «chel» 'e' vISovbejbe'.

I'm afraid I don't understand this sentence. You're using a question as object, which is an illegal construction.

I'm not sure, but I think that {nuq} forms an exception. We have only one example from the TalkNow Software {nuq Datlhutlh DaneH} but we have no explanation on how we can expand that. But I think that Hugh's sentence is all fine. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/QuestionAsObject

Am 02.06.2019 um 10:26 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:

I understand a wiki to be a virtual location, so I decided to play it safe.

That's a good point. We have a canon example {qep'a' wejDIchDaq} so it seems also virtual locations are acceptable. (okay, we may argue now whether an event is a location or not) The rule about {-Daq} being only used as a locative was only to make the difference clear to "IN chinese" or other expressions that use the word "in".

So, personally, I don't think we could safely (based on one example), begin using them.

That's a good attitude.

Let alone the fact, that I *truly* don't understand the specific qao of Hugh.

He wrote: {nuq 'oS «chel» 'e' vISovbejbe'.} I understand it as "I don't know what 'chel' represents." but I see that it causes some ambiguity, because it can be rad differently. To avoid that, I would suggest {Doch'e' 'oSbogh «chel» vISovbe'.} But maybe I haven't followed the conversation, so I might miss the point. :-) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/QuestionAsObject

On Jun 2, 2019, at 09:46, Rhona Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com> wrote:

I think a better way to express Hugh's idea is a relative clause: qech'e' 'oSbogh «chel» vISovbejbe' "I don't know for sure the idea that «chel» represents". Or maybe even just (mu') «chel» vIyajbejbe' "I do not certainly understand (the word) «chel»". :)

QeS is right; I didn’t intend that as an actual QAO - that was indeed a use of {nuq} as a relative rather than interrogative pronoun, and definitely not something I would have written had I thought about it properly ahead of time. I agree that this usage has no legs to stand on (obviously I was influenced by other languages that do have declarative uses for the question pronouns), and that it should have been rephrased to something like {«chel» jIyweS vISovbejbe'} or one of the many other suggestions. Anyway, what I actually meant by that, which I also realize was somewhat vague; is that it isn’t clear to me whether {chel} means “add” in the sense of “make an addition to”, or whether it is used to refer to arithmetic addition. The slang word {chelwI'} suggest the latter meaning, but that doesn’t preclude the former. As for the physicality of the noun that {-Daq} modifies, if the problem is that {wI'qIy} isn’t a physical location, I don’t really see how adding {turwI'}, which is one, helps things. If we take the example Quvar cited of {qep'a' wejDIchDaq} as an example, supposing we didn’t have that example to know it’s okay to treat events locatively then if you wanted to say something like {qep'a' wejDIchDaq jatlhtaH tlhIngan Hol HaDwI'pu'} and for some reason a locative conveyed your meaning better than something like {qaStaHvIS qep'a' wejDIch jatlhtaH tlhIngan Hol HaDwI'pu'}, then the analogous “solution” would be to tack on a physical location like {qep'a' wejDIch qachDaq jatlhtaH tlhIngan Hol HaDwI'pu'}. While it’s still accurate that the speaking happened in a building, in the same way it’s accurate that that the adding takes place on a server, it changes the meaning of the sentence. Now it’s possible that the studiers of the Klingon language were speaking in the building where the third great meeting occurred, but not during the meeting itself. {wI'qIy turwI'Daq} makes it sound like you’re adding the text to the server that hosts the wiki and not necessarily to the wiki itself. It also makes the adding sound like a more physical act, like you’re walking into the data center with a permanent marker and going to town on the server’s chassis. So while I appreciate that you’re trying to follow a rule about limiting the use of {-Daq} to actual locations, I think you should be aware that going out of the way to follow that rule can have unintended consequences on how your words are understood.

On Jun 2, 2019, at 16:11, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:

Arithmetic addition is referred to using the verb {boq}, literally "ally with".

wej boq cha'. chen vagh.

Right, but that refers to what the numbers are doing. What does a person do who adds numbers? The obvious and intuitive answer would be {boqmoH}, e.g. {wej, cha' je vIboqmoH; vagh vIchenmoH}, but then why would we have a slang word {chelwI'} for somebody who {mI' boqmoH}?

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 2, 2019, at 23:21, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

daniel dadap:

...

{wI'qIy turwI'Daq} makes it sound like you’re adding the text to the server that hosts the wiki and not necessarily to the wiki itself. It also makes the > adding sound like a more physical act, like you’re walking into the data center with a permanent marker and going to town on the server’s chassis. So while I appreciate that you’re trying to follow a rule about limiting the use of {-Daq} to actual locations, I think you should be aware that going out of the way to follow that rule can have unintended consequences on how your words are understood.

This is the most wrong and ridiculous reasoning I have ever read in the 3,5 years I'm in this list.

You're going to extremes to justify your initial opinion which was wrong. I'm dead certain, that if we asked 100 people, noone would understand that the words are added to the wiki server and not to the wiki.

I have seen again in the past, people trying desperately to prove other people wrong.. but this takes the cake.

Given Hugh’s occupation and intimate understanding of these technologies and finer appreciation for nuances regarding how information and servers is handled... I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss his intuition and perspective on the subject. I experience the same issue often even in natural languages, where people describing things within my area of professional expertise make no sense to me — or imply something really different than what “everyone knows” was meant. Klingon frequently drives me up the wall in trying to describe even some of the simplest things within my domain; but I doubt that many in this list would think twice about or even notice the actual inaccuracy in. Having a degree of technical fluency in a subject greatly changes your view on what words mean relating to that subject. —jevreH

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 10:30:05 +0300 "mayqel qunen'oS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

jevreH:

...

Given Hugh’s occupation and intimate understanding of these technologies and finer appreciation for nuances regarding how information and servers is handled

There is server.

That server hosts the wiki.

Someone says, "I'm gonna add a file to the server of the wiki" in a conversation, where the context is already crystal clear.

And someone understands, that "the file will be added to the server and not on the wiki" ?

Are we serious ?

As a system admin, I would agree with that. Everyday I deal with files /on a server/ that are not part of the service accessible by the user. - DloraH

Am 03.06.2019 um 14:54 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:

Since my intention is to place the new testament files on a server, for people to actually access them, then it's crystal clear, that these files will be added to the group of files which *are* accessible by the user.

This discussion seems to move away from a Klingon grammar topic. I think either options makes sense, but there is a light difference. Indeed, there is information on the wiki server that is not accessible in the wiki. So it's the same difference in Klingon as in English: {wI'qIyDaq} = "on the wiki" {wI'qIy turwI'Daq} = "on the server of the wiki" Of course, anything "on the wiki" is also "on the wiki server". Goind back to your original question, I would understand both options, because why in kahless' sake would you put it on the wiki server in a place that is not accessible from the public wiki? In daily speech, saying you add it to the wiki server usually includes putting it on the wiki, not in a secret place, unless you mention that, like "I put it in a closed area of the wiki server, here's the password". -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/KlingonLanguageWiki

ghItlhpu' Hugh, jatlhpu':

{wI'qIy turwI'Daq} makes it sound like you’re adding the text to the server that hosts the wiki and not necessarily to the wiki itself.

I tend to agree. As we see not just from qep'a' wejDIchDaq, but also from the classic example wa' Dol nIvDaq matay'DI' maQap (TKW p.209), -Daq is not so strict in its application that it invalidates a construction like wI'qIyDaq vIchelta' "I added it into the Wiki"; as Quvar notes, a virtual location like a wiki is no less a location. And since that's the case, unless the sense is that you specifically added it to the server and not the wiki, adding turwI' to the sentence adds nothing in terms of useful information, so it can safely be left out here. (Including it is not really wrong per se, but unless you're specifically talking about the server rather than the wiki, adding it sounds odd: not unlike going to a tach and asking for a baS HIvje' of bloodwine. Unless you have a particular reason for wanting a metal cup, it's extraneous information that isn't relevant to the discussion. For purely pragmatic reasons I think Grice's maxims of relevance and quantity, at least, would hold for Klingons as well.) (poD vay') taH:

So while I appreciate that you’re trying to follow a rule about limiting the use of {-Daq} to actual locations, I think you should be aware that going out of the way to follow that rule can have unintended consequences on how your words are understood.

jangpu' mayqel, jatlh:

This is the most wrong and ridiculous reasoning I have ever read in the 3,5 years I'm in this list.

toH, nom chungpu' wanI'vetlh. o.O Look, all Hugh is saying is nothing more than this: if wI'qIyDaq vIchelta' is wrong (as you claim) because -Daq must refer to a concrete physical location and can't refer to data in a virtual location, then the unavoidable implication is that -Daq must also refer to a concrete physical location elsewhere - such as in wI'qIy turwI'Daq vIchelta'. He's not saying that he believes either of those things is true. He's just saying that if you claim a particular meaning for the one, then for the sake of logical consistency, it will affect how you should interpret the other, or your argument falls apart. DaH Dayaj'a'? taH:

You're going to extremes to justify your initial opinion which was wrong.

As I said above, for my part I see no problem with Hugh's earlier statement that wI'qIyDaq alone is sufficient, in view of other canonical examples that indicate a virtual location is still quite happily conceptualised as a location by Klingons for the purposes of the local Type 5 suffixes. taH:

I'm dead certain, that if we asked 100 people, noone would understand that the words are added to the wiki server and not to the wiki.

In context they probably wouldn't. But the only thing that would allow them to do that would be context, which allows the intended meaning to be extracted from it. And in fact, if anything adding turwI' only adds ambiguity (by adding extraneous information) rather than removing from it. ghItlhpu' je Hugh, jatlh:

Now it’s possible that the studiers of the Klingon language were speaking in the building where the third great meeting occurred, but not during the meeting itself.

jangqa'pu' mayqel, jatlh:

Okrand used the phrase you're referring to, and it is pretty clear what he meant. Again, you're twisting everything on your attempt to prove your point.

What Hugh is doing here is nothing more than trying to interpret the canon examples using the very criteria that you are arguing forbids wI'qIyDaq. Logicians call it a reductio ad absurdum; it's a technique for examining an argument by working through the logical consequences of the argument being true. (And if anything he's trying to give you the benefit of the doubt in the argument, admitting that the semantics of the qep'a' wejDIchDaq example are also interpretable within the narrow semantics you're arguing for.) taH:

Since you're relatively new in this language, I'll give you an advice.

HollIj wa'DIch 'oHbe'pu'mo' DIvI' Hol'e', mayqel, qeS qanob je jIH: nguqlaw' naDev mu'mey'e' Daqonpu'bogh, 'ej loQ tIchlaw'. 'eDjenna' SoH 'e' vIHonchu'. vaj 'eDjen yIDaQo'. (poD vay') taH:

And as far as the {chel} is concerned.. You're trying to force on this verb, a very limited context, which Ca'Non so far hasn't ever done.

FWIW, the only example we appear to have of chel in a canonical text is this one: HoSDaq ghob luchel quv ghajbogh tlhInganpu'lI' "your Klingons with Honor add Integrity to Strength" (HolQeD 9:4, p.16) Which, by the way, is another clean example showing that the interpretation of -Daq as referring only to a physical, real, concrete, tangible, atoms-and-energy object is somewhat too narrow, and if anything stands in support of Hugh's usage. QeS 'utlh

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 09:50, Rhona Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com> wrote:

FWIW, the only example we appear to have of *chel* in a canonical text is this one:

*HoSDaq ghob luchel quv ghajbogh tlhInganpu'lI'* "your Klingons with Honor add Integrity to Strength" (*HolQeD* 9:4, p.16)

I recall that last time this sentence came up, it wasn't clear whether it had been provided by Okrand or not. Has this been confirmed since? -- De'vID

On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 18:31, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 09:50, Rhona Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com> wrote:

FWIW, the only example we appear to have of *chel* in a canonical text is this one:

*HoSDaq ghob luchel quv ghajbogh tlhInganpu'lI'*

"your Klingons with Honor add Integrity to Strength" (*HolQeD* 9:4, p.16)

De'vID:

...

I recall that last time this sentence came up, it wasn't clear whether it had been provided by Okrand or not. Has this been confirmed since?

According to a post by taD from June 2003, apparently Okrand was not involved.

In that case, it's not an example in a canonical text. -- De'vID

Whoah. What’s happening here jay'? I agree with how QeS has interpreted and explained my statements, but since you seem unwilling to accept that, I’ll respond personally. If you re-read what I wrote and what QeS wrote through an objective lens, and frame our interaction as a discussion rather than an argument, I hope you’ll be able to see that I’m not claiming the things you seem to think I am.

On Jun 2, 2019, at 22:21, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

You're going to extremes to justify your initial opinion which was wrong. I'm dead certain, that if we asked 100 people, noone would understand that the words are added to the wiki server and not to the wiki.

I have seen again in the past, people trying desperately to prove other people wrong.. but this takes the cake.

I’m not trying to prove anybody wrong here. And my initial opinion was nothing more than “what rule are you talking about? why are you adding the word {turwI'}?” How can asking a question be a wrong opinion?

daniel dadap:

...

Now it’s possible that the studiers of the Klingon language were speaking in the building where the third great meeting occurred, but not during the meeting itself.

Okrand used the phrase you're referring to, and it is pretty clear what he meant. Again, you're twisting everything on your attempt to prove your point.

He used the words without the {qach} that I needlessly added. The canon sentence is {qep'a' wejDIchDaq jatlhtaH tlhIngan Hol HaDwI'pu'}. The {qach} is my own non-canon addition. It is only by adding the {qach} that the meaning starts to become ambiguous. Okrand’s usage, as others pointed out, is a good starting point to question whether {-Daq} really does need a *physical* location, and indeed seems to suggest that it doesn’t. QeS additionally pointed out the example of {wa' Dol nIvDaq}. If you want to continue applying {-Daq} only to physical locations out of an abundance of caution, that’s certainly your right, but I’ve personally seen enough evidence to convince myself that the physicality of the location is not a necessary condition for the use of {-Daq}. This is my own opinion and I won’t try to convince others of it, but I feel confident in it by now.

Since you're relatively new in this language, I'll give you an advice.

When you're wrong about something admit it; learn something and move on. Everyone here, even people with decades of experience, have been proven wrong from time to time.

Of course everyone knows the proverb {QaghmeylIj tIchID; yIyoH}. Even before I knew this proverb, I have lived by it. I immediately admitted that my accidental use of what looked like a QAO was wrong. I openly approached the whole {-Daq} thing from an initial position of ignorance, as well as the meaning of {chel}. When I did find the rule you seemed to be talking about, I questioned whether adding {turwI'} to satisfy the assumed physicality requirement really made things better. That’s not the same as saying that it’s wrong to add {turwI'} to that sentence. I *think* what your objection to my line of questioning comes down to is interpreting my suggestion that {wI'qIy turwI'Daq mughl'ghach vIchel} *could* mean that it’s being added to some part of the server besides the wiki as a suggestion that it *does* mean that. Obviously, if you say the sentence as you have it, it would most likely be interpreted with meaning that you intended, but as QeS said, by adding the word {turwI'}, you are creating an ambiguity that didn’t previously exist. To be absolutely clear: * I agree that {-Daq} should be reserved for nouns that represent locations. * I’m not convinced that the location needs to be physical. * *If* we work from the premise that virtual locations are okay as well (which they seem to be) then {wI'qIyDaq} is sufficient. * *If* {wI'qIyDaq} is sufficient, then {wI'qIy turwI'Daq} might make one question what the word {turwI'} is doing there. * Questioning the presence of the word doesn’t mean that using the word is wrong. * As one questions the presence of the word, one *could* wonder whether it means something is being added to the server but not the wiki.

But trying to be smart doesn't score you any points.

Who is trying to score points here? This isn’t a competition; I’m trying to ask questions and talk about Klingon grammar and vocabulary, for my own education and for the education of others. It was absolutely not my intention to start an argument or to claim that anything you did was wrong, and indeed I don’t think it is wrong. I was merely pointing out that by adding another word, to satisfy the rules as you choose to interpret them, it opens up the possibility for the reader to misunderstand your meaning. Leaving the word out leaves that possibility closed. Leaving it out seems like it should be allowed, based on what multiple others have said, each of whom has more years of experience than both of us combined and then some.

And as far as the {chel} is concerned.. You're trying to force on this verb, a very limited context, which Ca'Non so far hasn't ever done. And all this in an attempt to prove that the initial sentence was wrong.

Again, admit that you didn't know, instead of trying to be smart.

I literally said I don’t know what {chel} means for sure. How is that not admitting that I don’t know? I’m not trying to force a meaning onto the word; I’m stating that I don’t know how it’s meant to be used, listing possible meanings, which include the meaning that you appeared to have intended, and citing an example that provides evidence to support a different meaning. I even literally said that even if it does refer to arithmetic, that doesn’t prevent it from also meaning what you meant. What am I doing wrong here? For what it’s worth, QeS provided a canon example of {chel}, that I hadn’t been aware of, which supports using it for non-arithmetic meanings of “add”, and for this I thank her. I’m fully satisfied with this example and it is currently my personal belief that {chel} can be used for non-arithmetic meanings of “add”, and I additionally suspect that it can likely be used for arithmetic meanings as well, but to be safe I’ll probably choose to use {boqmoH} in case it turns out that it can’t.