nuq DamuS? jIyajbe'.

?????? yajlaH Hoch 'e' vIpIH. 'elaDya' ngutlhmey Sov Hoch, qar'a'?

pagh tera' ngutlhmey vIlaDlaH. QIn tetlhvamvaD jIjeSlaHmeH, ngutlh choHwI' vIlo'nIS. //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 19:10 To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] I h-a-t-e transliteration pongvamvaD ngutlhmey nov lo' DIvI' Hol je. ?????? yajlaH Hoch 'e' vIpIH. 'elaDya' ngutlhmey Sov Hoch, qar'a'? ??????, qavaq 'e' vIHechbe'. transliteration vIpar je 'utbe'chugh. ~mIp'av On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 12:38 PM Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com<mailto:jmclark85@gmail.com>> wrote: 'a tlhIngan wabmey lo'bogh «michael» 'oH pongDaj'e', qar'a'? Sent from my iPhone On Apr 12, 2019, at 12:19, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com<mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote: transliteration vImuS; transliteration vImuSqu'.. transliteration v-I-m-u-S-q-u' jay' ! transliteration ngaSbogh QIn'e' vIlaDchoH, 'ej transliterationvam vIleghchoHDI', reH QInvam vIQaw'. reH.. reH !!! maj. DaH jIleSlaH. ~ m. qunen'oS transliteration pisses me off _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org<mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org<mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

toH! pIm pat Sar 'e' vIlIj. patlIjDaq 'elaDya' ngutlhmey jomlu'pu'be'chugh DalaDlaHbe'.

vaj 'elaDya' HolvaD 'ut qa'meH ngutlhmey.

vIleghlaH 'ach vIlaDlaHbe'; DIvI' ngutlhmey rur. QInmeyraj vIlaDlaHmeH, pIqaD cha'lu'meH QInmey vIchoHnIS. jIjangmeH, DIvI' ngutlhmey cha'lu'meH QInmeywIj vIchoHnIS. DIvI' Hol vIyajbe', 'ach tlhIngan wabmey lo'chugh ghItlhwI', tlhoS mu'mey vIqollaH. //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 19:54 To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] I h-a-t-e transliteration On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 1:30 PM Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se<mailto:felixm@kth.se>> wrote:

?????? yajlaH Hoch 'e' vIpIH. 'elaDya' ngutlhmey Sov Hoch, qar'a'?

pagh tera' ngutlhmey vIlaDlaH. QIn tetlhvamvaD jIjeSlaHmeH, ngutlh choHwI' vIlo'nIS. toH! pIm pat Sar 'e' vIlIj. patlIjDaq 'elaDya' ngutlhmey jomlu'pu'be'chugh DalaDlaHbe'. vaj 'elaDya' HolvaD 'ut qa'meH ngutlhmey. ~mIp'av

pIqaD cha'lu'meH QInmey choH nIqHom 'ach 'elaDya' ngutlhmey DIghlaHbe', qar'a'? pIqaDmo' neH DIvI' Hol DayajlaHbe'ba'. pagh DayajHa'qa''a'?

DIvI' Hol ghItlhmeH Ho'DoS 'op ngutlhmey ngu'laH nIqHom, 'ach pIj wab vIqolnISbogh 'oSbe'. *mayqel bey*vaD *mIcha'el bay* vIpongchugh, pongqoqDaj yajbe'. tlhIngan wabmey lughItlhlu'chugh, tlhoS DIvI' Hol wabmey qar vIloylaHchu'. motlh mu'mey nov vIyajbe', 'ach vIqollaHchugh vIqawlaH. latlh De' vIneHchugh, DIvI' Hol jatlhwI'vaD mu' vIrIchlaH. lI'qu'. //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 20:35 To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] I h-a-t-e transliteration On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 2:00 PM Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se<mailto:felixm@kth.se>> wrote:

toH! pIm pat Sar 'e' vIlIj. patlIjDaq 'elaDya' ngutlhmey jomlu'pu'be'chugh DalaDlaHbe'.

vaj 'elaDya' HolvaD 'ut qa'meH ngutlhmey.

vIleghlaH 'ach vIlaDlaHbe'; DIvI' ngutlhmey rur. QInmeyraj vIlaDlaHmeH, pIqaD cha'lu'meH QInmey vIchoHnIS. jIjangmeH, DIvI' ngutlhmey cha'lu'meH QInmeywIj vIchoHnIS. DIvI' Hol vIyajbe', 'ach tlhIngan wabmey lo'chugh ghItlhwI', tlhoS mu'mey vIqollaH. pIqaD cha'lu'meH QInmey choH nIqHom 'ach 'elaDya' ngutlhmey DIghlaHbe', qar'a'? pIqaDmo' neH DIvI' Hol DayajlaHbe'ba'. pagh DayajHa'qa''a'? ~mIp'av

On 4/12/2019 3:05 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:

On Apr 12, 2019, at 13:00, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se <mailto:felixm@kth.se>> wrote:

...

DIvI' Hol vIyajbe', 'ach tlhIngan wabmey lo'chugh ghItlhwI', tlhoS mu'mey vIqollaH.

Do', tlhIngan Hol jatlhchoHlaw' 'op DIvI'nganpu'. cha'Hu' jIyIttaHvIS muchol cha' DIvI'ngan. veng pu'jIn lunuDtaH. jatlhlaw' wa':

“He lo'. Haw'. 'ar yu'?”

jIyajlaHchu'be', 'ach tlhejwI'Daj ghu' Dellaw'. He lo'meH pu'jIn qenglaw'. mungDajvo' Haw'law'. 'ach qatlh ghot'e' yu'bogh toghnIS? taQbej.

/It is a curious fact, and one to which no one knows quite how much importance to attach, that something like 85% of all known worlds in the Galaxy, be they primitive or highly advanced, have invented a drink called jynnan tonnyx, or gee-N'N-T'N-ix, or jinond-o-nicks, or any one of a thousand or more variations on the same phonetic theme. The drinks themselves are not the same, and vary between the Sivolvian 'chinanto/mnigs' which is ordinary water served at slightly above room temperature, and the Gagrakackan 'tzjin-anthony-ks' which kill cows at a hundred paces; and in fact the one common factor between all of them, beyond the fact that the names sound the same, is that they were all invented and named before the worlds concerned made contact with any other worlds./ ///What can be made of this fact? It exists in total isolation. As far as any theory of structural linguistics is concerned it is right off the graph, and yet it persists. Old structural linguists get very angry when young structural linguists go on about it. Young structural linguists get deeply excited about it and stay up late at night convinced that they are very close to something of profound importance, and end up becoming old structural linguists before their time, getting very angry with the young ones. Structural linguistics is a bitterly divided and unhappy discipline, and a large number of its practitioners spend too many nights drowning their problems in Ouisghian Zodahs./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

I would like to take this opportunity, to describe the reasons why I find transliteration to be wrong, and why it should be avoided "as the devil avoids incense", to use a greek proverb.. 1: Transliteration shows the inability of him who transliterates, to accept the simple fact, that vocabulary-wise, klingon will never be complete. He knows that there are words missing, so what does he do ? He makes them up.. Now, I don't care whether he just transliterates. The reality is that he makes words up. Its *exactly* the same, as me saying: During this post, I will be using for "transliteration" the "klingon" word "ghaghtoH". Wouldn't that disturb you ? Would you accept it ? So, why should *I* accept it, if someone wrote {tranSlIteratIon} ? It's *exactly* the same. The rules of the game are simple: We speak Emperor's klingon, Only the Emperor creates new vocabulary. So, if we find something missing we ask the Emperor. Plain and simple. If someone can't take the "heat" of missing vocabulary, then he needs to get out the kitchen.. 2: It is confusing.. The fact that a transliterated word seems reasonable/obvious to the mind of its creator, doesn't mean that it will seem reasonable, let alone understandable, to others too. Often, reading transliterated words, I need to pause, make a coffee, and think over coffee, what the jay' the transliterated word really stands for.. And I ask: Is it the reader's obligation to decipher anyone's crap ? Please *do* tell me. When you are writing something which others will read, it is YOUR OBLIGATION, to make it simple and understandable. It is YOUR OBLIGATION to follow the Emperor's rules. Which brings me to the third reason I hate transliteration.. 3: In greek we have the saying "while you are eating, you're working up an appetite".. Meaning, that even if you're unwilling (at first) to do something, once you start, you *will* develop an appetite for it, and you *will* be doing more and more.. Why not transliterate ? No big deal.. Then, why not just place a type-7 in a sao ? No problem.. Then why not crap on the -Daq rule too ? Again, if you're creating your own personal dialect, then by all means, knock yourself out. But if you're writing for others, then it is YOUR OBLIGATION to follow the rules, and like it. 4: Transliterating, hinders your progress. I mean, why bother learning grammar ? Why bother learning the proper rules, so that you will be able to correctly express yourself ? F*** the rules, f*** Ca'NoN, f*** everything. The solution is just a transliterated word away. 5: It is disrespectful to the people who went into all that trouble to teach you, if you willingly trample the rules. And it is disrespectful to our Emperor, defiling his language with words which aren't his. I believe firmly, that the more experience, a klingon student acquires, the more his obligation increases to: F-O-L-L-O-W T-H-E j-a-y-' R-U-L-E-S !!! Y--O-U ***W-I-L-L*** F-O-L-L-O-W T-H-E R-U-L-E-S, A-N-D L-I-K-E I-T !!! After all, that's what we're here for. ~ m. qunen'oS Ca'NoN holy Ca'NoN

lieven:

See chapter 2.7 of the FAQ, or read the page at the wiki about transliteration

bIlugh, tlhIngan loDnI'wI'.. bIlugh.. amen, my klingon brother.. amen.. ~ m. qunen'oS Ca'NoN.. Ca'NoN.. my precious..

On Apr 13, 2019, at 04:15, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

Transliteration shows the inability of him who transliterates, to accept the simple fact, that vocabulary-wise, klingon will never be complete.

So by “transliteration” are you talking more narrowly about the particular act of using transliteration to import vocabulary from another language, instead of just dropping a non-Klingon word in, untransliterated?

He knows that there are words missing, so what does he do ? He makes them up.. Now, I don't care whether he just transliterates. The reality is that he makes words up. Its *exactly* the same, as me saying: During this post, I will be using for "transliteration" the "klingon" word "ghaghtoH". Wouldn't that disturb you ? Would you accept it ? So, why should *I* accept it, if someone wrote {tranSlIteratIon} ? It's *exactly* the same.

It’s not quite the same. You can make up words using other words. I would probably call transliteration something like {ngutlh nov ghItlh} (or {nov ngutlh} if you want to use {nov} as a noun) or {ngutlh qa'} like others on this list have done. But if you just want to completely make up a word for transliteration you can at least do so more convincingly than *{ghaghtoH}. You could make up a word like *{tItlh} and say that it’s short for something like {tam ghItlh}. Going back to your point, though, it seems that what bothers you about this particular use of transliteration is that it demonstrates an unwillingness to acknowledge that Klingon possesses an “incomplete” vocabulary, whatever that means. Looking at your own writings, it seems that most of the foreign words you bring in (untransliterated, naturally) are proper nouns (usually from works of fiction) or things from Earth with no known Klingon equivalent (e.g., yogurt, dog). But Klingon is no less “complete” for lacking those words than English is for lacking words like {bI'rel} or {DuraS} or {meqleH}. And is it okay to talk about {‘archer HoD}, {qIrq HoD}, and {pIqarD HoD} with those names because we’ve been given official transliterations for those (including ones that violate Klingon phonology for Kirk and Picard!), but not {SISqo la’/HoD}, {jenwey HoD}, {jorjo HoD}, {lorqa HoD} {payIq/payq HoD}, etc.? And we can talk about the {DIvI’ ‘ejDo’mey} named {‘entepray’} and {DISqa’vI’rIy} but not {voyajer}? I personally think that proper nouns are fair game, especially if context makes it clear that a transliterated proper noun isn’t intended to be a Klingon word, and that a reader familiar with the context for that proper noun would be able to deduce which proper noun was intended. At the same time, I understand that transliterating things can be confusing, and that especially for someone who’s still building up vocabulary, sending such a person on a {ngem Sargh} chase for a nonexistent word could be unfortunate. But I also like to write in pIqaD. It’s quite jarring to read a string of pIqaD only to have it interrupted by a proper noun in a different script. I get bothered by assertions that the Klingon vocabulary isn’t “complete”. What does that mean? That there exists a word to express every possible meaning that one could desire? I don’t think any language is complete, by that impossible metric. That it is possible to use a language as one’s primary language? I’d argue Klingon has been “complete” by this standard for some time. Sure, some things take more words to describe than others, but that is true even of languages that I expect you’d consider complete. I did a search for “words with no English equivalent” and this list was the top hit: https://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifestyle/lost-translation-30-words-with-e... Of course “Schadenfreude” was the top entry on that list. It’s a well known one, for sure. Is English “incomplete” because it has no native word for this, and must either borrow it from German or resort to an awkward, unweildy phrase like “a feeling of pleasure derived from the misfortune of others”? But wait, it gets better! Going down the list, we only need to reach #8 to see one from a language that doesn’t use the Latin script. Now we have a word that not only does the obviously incomplete English language not have a word for, but we can’t even spell it correctly with the alphabet used for writing English! So if I can’t transliterate, and I am just looking for the perfect word to describe a feeling of nostalgia for a former love, then I obviously have to write разблюто in the middle of my English sentence, right? Actually, разблюто is a bad example, since it’s not a real Russian word, and the best guess at its etymology is that it actually came from an error in an English-language TV show about Russians: http://languagehat.com/razbliuto-nyet/ - going further down the list, there’s a few Japanese words which I’ll skip since I’m not particularly familiar with Japanese and don’t want to misspell them in their non-transliterated forms, then at #13 (perhaps not coincidentally?) we have שלימזל, and I must say that I am absolutely outraged that the compilers of this list dared to transliterate this very important word whose absence in English definitively proves how woefully incomplete its vocabulary is. שלימזל is actually a very interesting example, as it is a portmanteau of a German word and a Hebrew word, written in the Hebrew alphabet, in a language that is neither German nor Hebrew. And portmanteau is an interesting word, as portmanteau (the type of suitcase) is itself a portmanteau, and English formerly had no word to express the concept that portmanteau now expresses. All of this is just a long way of saying that borrowed lexicon, and indeed even transliteration of borrowed lexicon, happens in the real world of natural languages all the time. Of course, Kingon is different, in that we have agreed as a community that there is a single source of new vocabulary and grammar rules for the language. And indeed, it can be a slippery slope when we’re talking about a language with as small of a vocabulary and as small of a speaker population as we have with Klingon. So surely it’s safer to leave things like proper nouns untransliterated, but that only really works well if you’re writing Klingon using the Latin alphabet and using proper nouns that are written in that alphabet, too.

Nobody disputes that the Klingon lexicon is incomplete. The point is that the lexicons of ALL languages are necessarily incomplete, so it doesn't matter. New words are continuously made up (or borrowed from other languages) all the time for new concepts and new things. Often in English, foreign words are italicized to indicate their foreignness, and as the words become less foreign-sounding, they are italicized less or not at all. Foreign words in Klingon can also be explicitly marked, with braces {} or some other surrounding symbols. Transliteration, as I understand your use of the term, indicates an inability or unwillingness to use pure Klingon to express one's thoughts, however long and convoluted that expression might be. Enjoy your cup of coffee. lay'tel SIvten On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 11:59 AM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

jiH:

...

Transliteration shows the inability of him who transliterates, to accept the simple fact, that vocabulary-wise, klingon will never be complete. Daniel: So by “transliteration” are you talking more narrowly about the particular act of using transliteration to import vocabulary from another language, instead of just dropping a non-Klingon word in, untransliterated?

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. What is your point ? Elaborate further, so I'll be able to reply.

Daniel:

...

It’s not quite the same. You can make up words using other words

I disagree. It's *exactly* the same.

We *can* use already existing klingon words, to convey the desired meaning. We *can* say for example {molmey Daq} for "graveyard". Sure, someone else may choose another way to describe this place. But we certainly *cannot* say {greyvIyarID} or anything similar.

Daniel:

...

it seems that what bothers you about this particular use of transliteration is that it demonstrates an unwillingness to acknowledge that Klingon possesses an “incomplete” vocabulary, whatever that means.

It means that klingon possesses an incomplete vocabulary..

I was always amazed, by the amount of discomfort this sentence causes to people. Truly.. If people believe that klingon vocabulary-wise is complete, then why do they keep asking okrand for new words ?

Why has kli created a voting system for new vocabulary ? If people believe that klingon vocabulary is complete, then why do they waste okrand's time requesting from him new words ?

If klingon vocabulary was complete a year ago, then why did okrand need to create new words for dsc ? Why did okrand create new words for "the little prince" ?

People keep saying that they can't understand how klingon vocabulary is incomplete, all while okrand *does* create new vocabulary..

Why doesn't okrand say, "don't ask me for new words, the vocabulary I gave you is complete" ?

So, who can seriously claim that the vocabulary we have is complete ?

Thank qeylIS, okrand doesn't share your view.. Because if he did, and went on saying "don't ask for new words, everything is perfect", then soon he would be the only one using the language.

Daniel:

...

I get bothered by assertions that the Klingon vocabulary isn’t “complete”. What does that mean? That there exists a word to express every possible meaning that one could desire? I don’t think any language is complete, by that impossible metric I did a search for “words with no English equivalent

Your reasoning is flawed. Seriously flawed. You're creating a straw-man argument..

You cite a list, implying that the reason I say klingon is incomplete, is because it is lacking this kind of words..

From everything that I wrote, is this what you have understood ?

Does klingon have a word for the breasts of woman ? Does klingon have a word for "joint" as in "knee joint" ? Does klingon have a word for "ash" ? Are there any natural languages which lack those words ?

So yeah, klingon *is* deficient, because it lacks essential words which ALL natural languages have. Not because it lacks the kinds of words that are cited in the list you mentioned.

But again, if your opinion is that klingon is complete, I respect it.. But if you *do* believe that, then I expect that you, and any other members of the klingon community who share your opinion do one simple thing:

1. request directly from okrand that he does not dispense new words

Simple isn't it ? Why don't you do it ? And why do ALL klingonists rejoice the moment they receive new words ?

Daniel:

...

I personally think that proper nouns are fair game, especially if context makes it clear that a transliterated proper noun isn’t intended to be a Klingon word, and that a reader familiar with the context for that proper noun would be able to deduce which proper noun was intended.

Fair game is only Ca'NoN. Period. Nothing more, nothing less.

Daniel:

...

Actually, разблюто is a bad example, since it’s not a real Russian word So surely it’s safer to leave things like proper nouns untransliterated, but that only really works well if you’re writing Klingon using the Latin alphabet and using proper nouns that are written in that alphabet, too.

Yes, there are words in natural languages, exclusively unique to those languages, which can't be written in latin alphabet.

So, what are you suggesting ? That if the latin alphabet, can't describe e.g. a russian word, then the klingon alphabet will ?

The solution is simple; you don't use these words. Greek has such words too. Have I ever used them ? Things are simple: someone either expresses himself staying *exclusively* within the confines of Ca'NoN, or he just says "sorry guys, I can't find a way to express whatever, so here is the english word".

Much more honest this way..

~ m. qunen'oS Ca'NoN Ca'NoN Ca'NoN holiest _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

But you conveniently forget, that in this case, there is a general agreement on what is to be accepted and how.

No, there’s often consensus not until after some time. That’s why my name alone has 4 different commonly-accepted spellings. You over-simplify the process.

Whose transliteration to use? Pick any reasonable one. That leaves out the cat's, and probably the neighbor's. You're making it a bigger deal than it needs to be. lay'tel SIvten On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 3:30 PM Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se> wrote:

...

And why should it be expected from the reader, to understand your transliteration ? Is it his obligation ?

Qumlu'DI', reH 'er'In megh'an je tu'lu'. bIyaj net raDbe' 'ach DuyajmoH qonwI' net raDbe' je.

tlhIngan Hol vIghItlhDI', pIqaD ngutlhmey 'oS DIvI' Hol ngutlhmeywIj 'e' vIjal. laDlaH pIqaD neH laDlaHbogh nuv vIneH.

Daparchugh, loQ Do'Ha' 'ach qabelmoHmeH Ho'DoSwIj vIchoHmoH 'e' vIHechbe'.

//loghaD

------------------------------ *From:* tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> *Sent:* Saturday, April 13, 2019 21:46 *To:* tlhIngan Hol mailing list *Subject:* Re: [tlhIngan Hol] I h-a-t-e transliteration

...

The point is that the lexicons of ALL languages are necessarily incomplete, so it doesn't matter. New words are continuously made up (or borrowed from > other languages) all the time for new concepts and new things.

You're wrong; it *does* matter. Try actually writing in klingon, and you'll see.

As to the "new words are continuously made up (or borrowed from other languages)" is concerned, it is true.

But you conveniently forget, that in this case, there is a general agreement on what is to be accepted and how.

In greek, we all write the english "laser" the same.

But answer me. Whose transliteration should one use for lets say "gamma" radiation ? Yours ? The guy's next door ? My cats' ?

And why should it be expected from the reader, to understand your transliteration ? Is it his obligation ?

Or is it that people who choose to transliterate, elevate theirselves to the status of okrand, expecting people to acknowledge *their* personal choices ?

~ m. qunen'oS Ca'NoN holy Ca'NoN _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

mayqel seems to be using a higher standard of acceptability for new words than natural/human languages use, namely that ONLY words from Marc Okrand himself are acceptable. This is generally acknowledged, at least on this list, but it's irrelevant. He's whining because it's hard for HIM to figure them out. lay'tel SIvten On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 5:56 PM Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:

On Apr 13, 2019, at 11:59, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

Daniel:

So by “transliteration” are you talking more narrowly about the particular act

of using transliteration to import vocabulary from another language, instead of

just dropping a non-Klingon word in, untransliterated?

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. What is your point ? Elaborate further, so I'll be able to reply.

I think the rest of your reply more or less confirms what I was asking. I was just trying to understand what about transliteration you find problematic, as the pure act of writing a word with a different writing system than customarily used for that word’s language is, in and of itself, a rather benign one.

Others have noted that your name {mayqel} is a transliteration of the English version of your name. In fact, both the English and Greek versions are in turn transliterations of the Hebrew version. So I doubt that you have a problem with transliteration itself but rather with a particular use of transliteration.

Klingon possesses an “incomplete” vocabulary, whatever that means.

It means that klingon possesses an incomplete vocabulary..

But my point, as others have noted, is that all languages possess incomplete vocabularies, for a high enough standard of “complete”.

So, who can seriously claim that the vocabulary we have is complete ?

Thank qeylIS, okrand doesn't share your view.. Because if he did, and went on saying "don't ask for new words, everything is perfect", then soon he would be the only one using the language.

My point wasn’t that we won’t benefit from more vocabulary. We absolutely will, as it will help us communicate more concisely. My point was that by the metric I was trying to imagine as one that would make sense for calling a language “complete”, Klingon is complete *enough* to be useful. Equating this with saying that there’s no room for further vocabulary growth is a false equivalence.

Does klingon have a word for the breasts of woman ? Does klingon have a word for "joint" as in "knee joint" ? Does klingon have a word for "ash" ? Are there any natural languages which lack those words ?

So yeah, klingon *is* deficient, because it lacks essential words which ALL natural languages have.

I don’t know all of the languages of the world, but I would honestly be surprised if there *weren’t* a natural language out there that lacked a dedicated word for at least one of those things. I would not be surprised if there were one that lacked dedicated words for all three. Different languages draw semantic boundaries in different places. And it’s not like you can’t talk about those things in Klingon despite our not having words for them (yet): {logh'ob} or {nIm lIngwI'Du'} for breasts depending on context, {SIHwI'} for joint, {Sor Hap meQlu'chu'pu'bogh} for wood ash.

I was almost about to say that there isn’t a dedicated word for “breast” in Tagalog, as the usual way to say that is the same way you would say chest (dibdib), but then I remembered that there is indeed a separate word (suso) that can only mean breast, it’s just not the first one that one would usually use when not talking about lactation. But the Russian situation with limbs isn’t far off. Russian uses one word (рука) to mean both “arm” and “hand”, and one word (нога) to mean both “leg” and “foot”. Does that mean that Russian is deficient and incomplete compared to other languages that do have separate words for the things at the ends of the limbs versus the limbs themselves? Russian also splits up what we call “blue” in English into two separate colors (голубой, синий). Does that make English deficient and incomplete?

Here one might say that Klingon is deficient and incomplete because it only has four color words. But many natural Earth languages have a similar number of color words. What’s interesting about Klingon is that it draws its line between {Doq} and {SuD} in a different place than Earth languages with the same number of color words do.

If the line for “complete” is going to be something like “contains all the words that every natural language has”, that’s something of an impossible thing to measure, since nobody has a catalog of the vocabulary of every natural language, and in any case, there’s hardly a 1:1 mapping between words and concepts that holds true across even a small number of natural languages, let alone all of them.

But again, if your opinion is that klingon is complete, I respect it.. But if you *do* believe that, then I expect that you, and any other members of the klingon community who share your opinion do one simple thing:

1. request directly from okrand that he does not dispense new words

Simple isn't it ? Why don't you do it ? And why do ALL klingonists rejoice the moment they receive new words ?

Because, again, this is a false equivalence. Klingon is complete enough for people to use it for communication. That doesn’t mean it’s finished and we can tie a bow on it and never need new words.

I personally think that proper nouns are fair game

Fair game is only Ca'NoN. Period. Nothing more, nothing less.

So I need to either wait for a canon transliteration of every place name I might ever use, or just have ugly Terran scripts in the middle of a pIqaD text if I dare to write about traveling to some place we don’t have an official transliteration for? Before we got {qebeq} from Maltz sometimes I would write or read it as {qebeq} and sometimes as {qeybeq}. Now I only write {qebeq}. Was I trying to pretend that {qebeq} was the right and only way to write the name of that province? Certainly not. Was I sad when it turned out the way to write it wasn’t {qeybeq}? No, I was happy to no longer have to guess.

So, what are you suggesting ? That if the latin alphabet, can't describe e.g. a russian word, then the klingon alphabet will ?

No, I was pointing out that refusing to transliterate because doing so might make a world look Klingon when everybody knows it’s not is silly. Like I said, разблюто is a bad example because it’s not a real word. It even got flagged by my phone as being misspelled when I typed it in. But שלימזל is a real word in Yiddish (oh, I’m sorry - יידיש), and in fact one that has come into common use as a loanword in English. So if transliteration is so terrible because it tricks people into thinking that a word from another language is actually a word in the language that the word is transliterated into, I should never, ever, write a sentence in English like “the poor shlimazl can never catch a break”, right? And I definitely shouldn’t worry that people won’t recognize the word because I didn’t spell it “shlimazal” or “schlimazel”, either, because then I’d look like a total shlemiel, right?

Things are simple: someone either expresses himself staying *exclusively* within the confines of Ca'NoN, or he just says "sorry guys, I can't find a way to express whatever, so here is the english word".

Much more honest this way..

So I think we agree that there’s no problem with calling something a “taco” rather than trying to think of a phrase like {Ha'DIbaH tIr jengva' je}, by analogy with the canon way we know to call a sandwich (which also seems unfair to meatless sandwiches, and tacos, FWIW). Where it seems we disagree is what writing “taqo” instead means. To me, it’s just writing the word the way I would if I were writing in pIqaD, like loghaD suggested. I’d want to pronounce it that way anyway, as the alien [k] sound would sound strange in an otherwise Klingon sounding sentence. I’m not claiming {taqo} is a Klingon word; I’m not even expecting that all Klingon speakers should understand me or accept my use of the word. I would probably expect that whoever I wrote that to would understand what I’m talking about. To you, however, it seems to mean much more. _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 02:05, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:

There’s actually a whole class of canonical words that bug me precisely because they’re obviously transliterations of proper nouns that originated on Earth. I’m talking about {DenIb}, {reghuluS}, and {'orayya'}. Okay, it makes sense for Humans to call people Denebians, Regulans, and Orions if they come from Deneb, Regulus, or the general direction of Orion compared to Earth, but why would Klingons use those names? It’s hard to think of an in-universe explanation that makes sense. Was all of the Klingon Empire’s early contact with these people mediated by Earth or the Federation? Are those names actually based on native names, and they just coincidentally sound like names out of Earth’s astronomical charts? And don’t get me started on Romulus and Remus…

It's established Star Trek canon that the Olympian gods are real, so that at least gives a way to explain some of the naming. -- De'vID

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 00:56, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:

On Apr 13, 2019, at 11:59, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

So, who can seriously claim that the vocabulary we have is complete ?

Thank qeylIS, okrand doesn't share your view.. Because if he did, and went on saying "don't ask for new words, everything is perfect", then soon he would be the only one using the language.

My point wasn’t that we won’t benefit from more vocabulary. We absolutely will, as it will help us communicate more concisely. My point was that by the metric I was trying to imagine as one that would make sense for calling a language “complete”, Klingon is complete *enough* to be useful. Equating this with saying that there’s no room for further vocabulary growth is a false equivalence.

Also, even if a language is (sufficiently) complete, there's no reason not to add more vocabulary. There's nothing wrong with synonyms, or specialised vocabulary. If I had said {lojmIt qal'aq}, you can probably guess what I mean, but {lIvqa'nan} is still a welcome addition.

Does klingon have a word for the breasts of woman ? Does klingon have a word for "joint" as in "knee joint" ? Does klingon have a word for "ash" ? Are there any natural languages which lack those words ?

So yeah, klingon *is* deficient, because it lacks essential words which ALL natural languages have.

I don’t know all of the languages of the world, but I would honestly be surprised if there *weren’t* a natural language out there that lacked a dedicated word for at least one of those things. I would not be surprised if there were one that lacked dedicated words for all three. Different languages draw semantic boundaries in different places. And it’s not like you can’t talk about those things in Klingon despite our not having words for them (yet): {logh'ob} or {nIm lIngwI'Du'} for breasts depending on context, {SIHwI'} for joint, {Sor Hap meQlu'chu'pu'bogh} for wood ash.

{logh'ob} is a recent addition to the vocabulary. For a long time, {(be') HuD} has been slang for breasts. ({(be') ngech} is officially slang for a woman's cleavage, and {HuD} is just a natural extension of that.) {rarwI'} has been used for "joint" (the mechanical part), and it would probably work for an anatomical joint in context. {Hom rarwI'} might not be precise enough in a few narrow contexts, but I bet in most situations it would be understood. {SIHwI'} might work, but joints aren't always bending, so maybe {SIHlaHwI'} or {SIHmoHlaHwI'}? Also, if it's a elbow- or knee-like joint, you might be able to say {[body part]qIv} after the pattern of {DeSqIv}, like maybe a *{telqIv} on a batwing. (There's also a question with {SIH} over whether it means "the subject bends" or "the subject bends the object". Do we know this?) One an occasion on which someone had to express "ash" in Klingon, a slang {mu' ru'} was coined. I understood it right away. (The word, which I emphasise is made-up, unofficial, slang, etc., was *{voq}. If you're a member of the club, you'll understand it without my having to explain it to you.) The point is, the lack of an explicit dictionary entry word in Klingon doesn't impede communication, and hence it's just as "complete" as many natural languages. I was almost about to say that there isn’t a dedicated word for “breast” in

Tagalog, as the usual way to say that is the same way you would say chest (dibdib), but then I remembered that there is indeed a separate word (suso) that can only mean breast, it’s just not the first one that one would usually use when not talking about lactation. But the Russian situation with limbs isn’t far off. Russian uses one word (рука) to mean both “arm” and “hand”, and one word (нога) to mean both “leg” and “foot”. Does that mean that Russian is deficient and incomplete compared to other languages that do have separate words for the things at the ends of the limbs versus the limbs themselves? Russian also splits up what we call “blue” in English into two separate colors (голубой, синий). Does that make English deficient and incomplete?

Persian also has just one word for "hand, arm" and one for "leg, foot". It also only has one word for "finger, toe". (English has as well in "digit", but it's not used in common everyday speech.) This never really causes any confusion, both because you can always be more specific (e.g., "leg-digit" for "toe" to differentiate it from finger), and because there are assumed defaults ("put your shoes on your legs" obviously means to put it on the end part, not somewhere else). And in Japanese, a distinct word for "green" to separate it from "blue" only came into existence a thousand years ago, which has resulted in some things like blue traffic lights: https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/japan-green-traffic-lights-blue -- De'vID

On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 at 12:33, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

lay'tel SIvten

...

You're making it a bigger deal than it needs to be. [...] 'a SoH'e'..

qaStaHvIS wej DIS, naDev jIjeS, 'a not wa' tlhIngan mu'tlhegh DaghItlhta'. pagh''e' ! vaj, chay' potlh vuDlIj ? tlhIngan Hol Dalo'laH ?

chaq tlhIngan Hol jatlhchu' 'ach naDev jatlhqangbe' neH. chaq SoHvaD neH tlhIngan Hol jatlhqangbe'. naDev tlhIngan Hol jatlhchugh vay' qoj rIchchugh vay', mIt QInDaj. -- De'vID