Don't forget that people also quite frequently say: {____ jIH}, "I am _____". For example, {'arHa jIH}. -- Socialist Alternative <http://www.socialistalternative.org/> Klingon Language Institute <http://www.kli.org/> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 11:34 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

Also keep in mind, that the exact translation of {Quvar vIponglu'}, isn't "I'm called Quvar". It is rather "someone calls me Quvar". Klingon doesn't have a passive voice..

qunnoq ghogh HablI'wIjvo' vIngeHta'

On 1 Oct 2016 7:31 p.m., "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Don't take me seriously, but if I read the {Quvar vIponglu'}, I would understand that "someone calls me Quvar"; this would raise the ambiguity that only "that someone" calls me Quvar, while others may call me differently.

As far as the {Quvar jIpong'egh}, then again there is the matter that perhaps "only I" call myself Quvar, while others may call me differently, and there is this additional problem as well:

You have the {jIpong'egh}, and before that you have the {Quvar}; I'm not sure if you can have a noun sitting around in front of a verb, without that noun having a definite and clear relation to that verb. I mean, is {Quvar} an object to the {jIpong'egh} ? Since we have a no object prefix, then obviously it isn't. So, I don't think we can put it there.

Anyway, as I already wrote, when I talk about grammar don't take me seriously..

qunnoq ghogh HablI'wIjvo' vIngeHta'

On 1 Oct 2016 3:47 p.m., "Aurélie Demonchaux" < demonchaux.aurelie@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hoch Savan ! :)

It’s been bugging me for a few days now that the most common way in Klingon to introduce one’s name is to use « pong » as a noun and not a verb, when most languages (that I know of) offer the possibility to introduce one’s name directly with a specific verb (« I am called + name »)

So I’ve checked the page on this topic on Klingonwiki.net, and now have 2 questions:

1/ On Klingonwiki, one solution for using « pong » as a verb is to do it in the passive voice, as below:

...

jIHvaD Quvar ponglu' I am being called Quvar.

Literally, this is “For me(/to talk to me), call Quvar”.

But since in this example the person being called is “me”, and "Quvar" is only what I'm called, then instead of using < jIHvaD Quvar ponglu’ > can we also say:

< Quvar vIponglu’ > - “I am called Quvar”?

Kind of like the “prefix trick” I read about elsewhere on the Klingonwiki?

2/ Can we use a pronominal / reflexive verb?

In French, we have lots of pronominal verbs (verbs that are accompanied by a reflexive pronoun, for example “s’asseoir” (=to sit) literally means “to sit oneself”, or “se lever” (to get up/stand up) is literally “to get oneself up”)

So if someone says “je m’appelle Quvar” for “I am called Quvar”, what it literally means is “I call myself Quvar”.

Thus, in Klingon, can we use a similar structure?

< Quvar jIpong’egh > -- I call myself Quvar

Please let me know what you think :)

Thanks in advance!

~mughwI'

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

---

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

lieven:

the canon example also uses that passive voice: {roD 'oHvaD juHqo' ponglu' neH} It is usually referred to as simply "The Homeworld."

QI'yaH ! The canon example does use the {-lu'} ! In that case, I recall my statement about "finding a piece of canon I actually like", and I'm stating that I prefer the non {-lu'} way of describing the name of something. canon yInga' ! may the canon master forgive me.. qunnoq again, our good captain is proven right On 2 Oct 2016 12:23 p.m., "Lieven" <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:

Am 01.10.2016 um 18:34 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:

...

Also keep in mind, that the exact translation of {Quvar vIponglu'}, isn't "I'm called Quvar". It is rather "someone calls me Quvar". Klingon doesn't have a passive voice..

That's true, but since there no approriate English way to translate this (I always find the "someone indefinite..." very awkward in english) The passive voice is the best way to do it. I don't know who mentioned it, but the canon example also uses that passive voice:

{roD 'oHvaD juHqo' ponglu' neH} It is usually referred to as simply "The Homeworld."

(Skybox card 27)

Lieven jIH, 'ach rut jIHvaD Quvar ponglu' net Sov :-)

-- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

jIH:

if I read the {Quvar vIponglu'}, I would understand that "someone calls me Quvar" ghItlhta' ghunchu'wI': You apparently still think {-lu'} is a replacement for using {vay'}. taHta' ghunchu'wI': The exact translation of {vIponglu'} is closer to "someone or something unspecified names me". What you proposed is instead an exact translation of {...mupong vay'}

I remember clearly the distinction between {-lu'} and {vay'}, however I chose to give the translation by the use of the word "someone", because that is the word that the tkd uses. Aurélie Demonchaux:

can we also say: Quvar vIponglu’ - “I am called Quvar”? ghunchu'wI': That works fine, though some people consider it extremely informal usage.

I disagree. Even with the vaguest of meanings the {-lu'} is able to provide, then again this talks of an unspecified someONE. The question however asks for "how does EVERYONE call me". If I heard the {Quvar vIponglu’}, I would be left to wonder whether the speaker refers to an unspecified someone and that's that, or whether he implies that *I* can actually be included in the context of that someone too. Granted, if someone asks "what's your name" and you reply "someone unspecified calls me bugs bunny", then obviously you're telling him "call me bugs bunny too". However, to talk about "what is being implied and understood at the actual moment of the conversation" is one thing; and to talk about "the exact and unambiguous meaning of a sentence" is another. So, because of this reason, I believe that the canon way of replying by saying "jIHvaD Quvar lupong", is by far the way to go. Now, yes, perhaps someone will say that even now, this talks of a group of "they"; and perhaps "there is another a group which calls me differently". But I believe this is too much of a nitpicking.. I can't actually believe I'm writting this, but I finally found a piece of canon which makes me happy, and I wouldn't change for anything even if I could ! voragh will be happy ! hehehe ! qunnoq On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:

On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Aurélie Demonchaux <demonchaux.aurelie@gmail.com> wrote:

...

But since in this example the person being called is “me”, and "Quvar" is only what I'm called, then instead of using < jIHvaD Quvar ponglu’ > can we also say:

< Quvar vIponglu’ > - “I am called Quvar”?

Kind of like the “prefix trick” I read about elsewhere on the Klingonwiki?

That works fine, though some people consider it extremely informal usage. It is *precisely* the prefix trick, with the verb prefix indicating what we'd call in English an indirect object instead of the direct object.

Note that it's only the English translation here which has passive voice. In Klingon, it's just an indefinite subject. Many occurrences of the {-lu'} suffix can be translated with passive voice, but not all.

...

Thus, in Klingon, can we use a similar structure? < Quvar jIpong’egh > -- I call myself Quvar

It is understandable, but I won't call it grammatically correct, and I would avoid it.

On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 12:31 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Don't take me seriously, but if I read the {Quvar vIponglu'}, I would understand that "someone calls me Quvar"; this would raise the ambiguity that only "that someone" calls me Quvar, while others may call me differently.

You apparently still think {-lu'} is a replacement for using {vay'}. In {vIponglu'}, there is no "that someone". The subject is vague and unspecified, and it might as well not even exist.

...

Also keep in mind, that the exact translation of {Quvar vIponglu'}, isn't "I'm called Quvar". It is rather "someone calls me Quvar". Klingon doesn't have a passive voice..

The exact translation of {vIponglu'} is closer to "someone or something unspecified names me". What you proposed is instead an exact translation of {...mupong vay'}.

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

On Oct 2, 2016, at 9:57 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

Except the prefix trick only works for first- and second-person indirect objects, so *Quvar vIponglu' is simply ungrammatical.

What is wrong with it? {vIponglu'} does specify a first person object. -- ghunchu'wI'

Am 02.10.2016 um 23:33 schrieb SuStel:

...

What is wrong with it? {vIponglu'} does specify a first person object.

You're right; I was forgetting it had *-lu'* on it.

Hm... wait a second. First I was going to object, saying that vI- has a third person object. But I looked closer and remembered that {-lu'} reverses that. So it IS true that the /word/ has a first person object, but the prefix itself does NOT. If this form is correct - and I think we all agree, because it sounds okay - then I think this may be a new amendment to the existing "rule". AS far as I remember, Okrand has only talked about using "pronominal prefix indicating a first- or second-person object", not any verb . Many people explain that {vI-[...]-lu'} is similar to {mu-[...]-vay'} then it really does make sense to say {taj vInoblu'} I know for some this may be nitpicking, but I think it's worth to be mentioned, and I'll add it to the Klingon wiki. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net

On 10/3/2016 4:40 AM, Lieven wrote:

...

reverses that. So it IS true that the /word/ has a first person object, but the prefix itself does NOT.

Am 03.10.2016 um 13:58 schrieb SuStel:

No, the prefixes mean something different when used with *-lu'.

Why you say no? You repeat exactly what I said before. I even wrote in my message that I agree with what you said before. Why do you always have to say no? We are agreeing absolutely on the same idea, and you still say no. Alan: - It's green. Lieven: - Indeed, it's green. SuStel: - No, it's green. rIn. Lieven.

Am 03.10.2016 um 16:08 schrieb SuStel:

You said "So it IS true that the /word/ has a first person object, but the prefix itself does NOT."

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.

Come on, you're not that stupid. You just enjoy nitpicking and attach yourself to my not-so-perfect scientific linguistic description. I'm sorry, I'll go study English language and linguistics before I write any other message here.

A prefix does not /have/ an object; it /indicates/ an object.

Thanks for clarifying this to me. I have been doing it wrong for almost twenty years now. That probably explains why I'm not so fluent in Klingon.

A prefix like *vI-* can indicate a third-person object /or/ a first-person object, depending on whether the subject is definite or indefinite.

Yes, it can. All that I just wanted to say - and yes, I'm also nitpicking now - is that "per definition" of TKD, chapter 4.1.1, {vI-} primarily "indicates" a third person object. What I meant to say with the above phrase you do not understand is that the word including the suffix -lu' indicates a different object than with the suffix -lu'. In the MSN forum, Okrand wrote "When the indirect object is first or second person, the pronominal prefix which NORMALLY indicates first or second person object may be used." So aaaall that I'm saying is that if you take this "nitpickingly-literally", {vI-} is NOT a prefix that "NORMALLY indicates first person object". Further, chapter 4.2.5 about indefinite subject, say what you mentioned (and which I do not contradict) that the prefixes "which NORMALLY indicate first person object" are used in a differetn way. The next page even mentions the prefix {vI-} "which NORMALLY means I do something to him" in combination with -lu' becomes "something does something to me". --- I know this may be a bit too nitpicking from my side regarding the used term "normally", but most of the time it's YOU who insists on sticking to existing definitions and not accepting extrapolated rules that are based on just our feeling that it sounds correct. rIn. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net

Thanks all for your replies! @ghunchu'wI' 1/ Regarding “Quvar vIponglu’”:

That works fine, though some people consider it extremely informal usage.

ok thanks for confirming this! Just to check, is there a canon reference on this being informal, stating that the prefix trick and / or <-lu’> suffix make the sentence informal, or is it more an opinion / deduction that some Klingon linguists have formed based on their knowledge of the language?

...

Thus, in Klingon, can we use a similar structure? < Quvar jIpong’egh > -- I call myself Quvar It is understandable, but I won't call it grammatically correct, and I would avoid it.

Ok I understand, thanks a lot! Plus mayqel also mentioned it could be misunderstood as "only I call myself Quvar" so it does make sense to avoid the phrasing. I thought about this further, and I figure that actually the general guideline (on reflexive vs non-reflexive verbs) is to just follow English usage (for the equivalent verbs), unless stated otherwise in canon materials. So then if someone gives an order to 1 other person to sit in Klingon, it will be < yIba’ > but not < yIba’egh >, because in English you would normally say “sit down” but not “sit yourself down” (although the 2nd phrasing does actually exist, it seems to be nonstandard). Thanks again :) 2016-10-03 16:52 GMT+02:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:

On 10/3/2016 10:36 AM, Lieven wrote:

...

Am 03.10.2016 um 16:08 schrieb SuStel:

...

You said "So it IS true that the /word/ has a first person object, but the prefix itself does NOT."

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.

Come on, you're not that stupid. You just enjoy nitpicking and attach yourself to my not-so-perfect scientific linguistic description. I'm sorry, I'll go study English language and linguistics before I write any other message here.

Listen, bub: I really didn't understand the phrase, because it really was that badly worded. I don't give a crap how linguistic your descriptions are, so long as your sentence makes sense, which yours didn't. Maybe if you weren't covered in nits, I wouldn't pick so much.

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name

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

Thanks a lot ghunchu'wI' for clarifying, it all makes sense to me now and I'll keep it in mind when practicing the language :) -- mughwI' 2016-10-04 1:10 GMT+02:00 Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net>:

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Aurélie Demonchaux <demonchaux.aurelie@gmail.com> wrote:

...

1/ Regarding “Quvar vIponglu’”:

...

That works fine, though some people consider it extremely informal

usage.

ok thanks for confirming this! Just to check, is there a canon reference on this being informal, stating that the prefix trick and / or <-lu’> suffix make the sentence informal, or is it more an opinion / deduction that some Klingon linguists have formed based on their knowledge of the language?

There is nothing officially published that labels it as informal. It's mostly a matter of a long-established preference in this discussion forum for strict grammatical forms when teaching Klingon. Some of us think of the "prefix trick" as somehow lazy. It's not described in The Klingon Dictionary, and it seems in real life to have evolved as a too-close translation of certain English phrasings.

It's perfectly valid grammar, and those who consider themselves fluent (or nearly so) in Klingon won't have a problem understanding it. I probably went too far using the word "extremely", and for that I apologize.

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

1. Did anyone provide examples WRT the “My name is X” question? Here’s the verb {pong} “name, call”: roD 'oHvaD juHqo' ponglu' neH It [i.e. Qo'noS] is usually referred to as simply "The Homeworld." (S27) 'oHvaD Suto'vo'qor pong qotar Kotar named it Sto-vo-kor. (PB) DaHjaj matlh jupna' pIpong Today we name you a true friend of Maltz. (FMC) … and the homophonus noun {pong}: 'u' 'oH ghe'naQ pong['e']. The name of the opera is <'u'>. ('U'-MTK, sic) luqara' 'oH pongwI[j]'e' My name is Lukara. (PB, sic) RYAN NYP chu' 'oH muD Duj'e' 'ej "ST. LOUIS toDuj" 'oH pongDaj'e'. (NASM) [untranslated; FYI “Ryan NYP” is a {muD Duj} “airplane”] 2. While I’m at it, here’s the canon for {ba'} “sit”: quSDaq ba'lu''a' Is this seat taken? TKD ba'! Sit! (Clipped pet command) PK quSDaq bIba' You sit in a chair. KGT quSDaq ba' He/she sits in a chair. KGT N.B. {quSDaq ba’} is also an idiom meaning “that’s obvious” (cf. KGT p.124). -- Voragh tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a' Ca'Non Master of the Klingons On Behalf Of Aurélie Demonchaux Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 4:36 PM ok thanks for confirming this! Just to check, is there a canon reference on this being informal, stating that the prefix trick and / or <-lu’> suffix make the sentence informal, or is it more an opinion / deduction that some Klingon linguists have formed based on their knowledge of the language? I thought about this further, and I figure that actually the general guideline (on reflexive vs non-reflexive verbs) is to just follow English usage (for the equivalent verbs), unless stated otherwise in canon materials. So then if someone gives an order to 1 other person to sit in Klingon, it will be < yIba’ > but not < yIba’egh >, because in English you would normally say “sit down” but not “sit yourself down” (although the 2nd phrasing does actually exist, it seems to be nonstandard).

On 3 October 2016 at 23:36, Aurélie Demonchaux <demonchaux.aurelie@gmail.com>

So then if someone gives an order to 1 other person to sit in Klingon, it will be < yIba’ > but not < yIba’egh >, because in English you would normally say “sit down” but not “sit yourself down” (although the 2nd phrasing does actually exist, it seems to be nonstandard).

This is true for verbs of movement. But for verbs describing a state, the imperative requires {-'eghmoH}. You can't say, e.g., "be hot!", but must say "Make yourself hot!" See KGT (Klingon for the Galactic Traveler) p. 117. -- De'vID

*@Voragh:* 1/ Thanks for sharing the full canon references on < pong >. I realize I was actually using the prefix trick in my exercises at home without realizing it. Looking at the examples, I figure the most correct sentence structure in those cases is as below: [indirect object]-vaD [direct object] [verb] (who is called)-vaD (what they’re called) (verb) So I would assume that this structure is also valid for any similar verb that can have 2 objects, like < jatlh > (tell, say) Thus, taking the example “I told you no” (“you” being singular here): Correct/classical grammar: SoHvaD < ghobe’ > vIjatlhta’ Here the verb prefix is vI (I--it), agreeing with the direct object < ghobe’ >. Prefix trick: < ghobe’ > qajatlhta’ with the prefix agreeing with the indirect object “you”. (If I’m getting it wrong, as always I really appreciate your corrections!) 2/ Regarding ’egh : thanks for your full explanation on this, it’s all clear now and duly noted! 3/

[Yes Aurélie, there is a different verb for each finger and toe!]

tlhaQ ’oHvam ! :D I wonder which language (if any) inspired this peculiarity in Klingon! *@De’vID*

This is true for verbs of movement. But for verbs describing a state, the imperative requires {-'eghmoH}

Duly noted too, many thanks! *@Lieven / Quvar * 1/ While we’re all influenced by our mother tongues when learning or speaking new languages, it can also be a strength sometimes. For the –lu’ suffix, I like to compare it to the French “on” (3rd person singular pronoun), which also conveys that the subject of the sentence is an indefinite someone (except when “on” means “we” – it depends on the context – but I digress). So, comparing & seeing where it’s similar (or not) helps me learn. Similarly, in my notes on verbal prefixes, I translated the TKD prefix table into French, because we have 2 distinct pronouns for “you” (singular “tu” and plural “vous”), and Klingon makes the same singular/plural distinction. Did you use similar techniques when learning Klingon, comparing some of its features with other languages to help you learn? 2/ Thanks also for sharing comparative French - German examples – I’m still a beginner in German so it helps my German-learning too! ~mughwI' 2016-10-05 16:13 GMT+02:00 Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>:

Aurélie :

...

...

So then if someone gives an order to 1 other person to sit in Klingon, it will be < yIba’ > but not < yIba’egh >, because in English you would normally say “sit down” but not “sit yourself down” (although the 2nd phrasing does actually exist, it seems to be nonstandard).

De'vID:

...

This is true for verbs of movement. But for verbs describing a state, the imperative requires {-'eghmoH}. You can't say, e.g., "be hot!", but must say "Make yourself hot!" See KGT (Klingon for the Galactic Traveler) p. 117.

For those who don't have a copy KGT:

(KGT 117): Generally, when a verb describing a state of being (for example, {tuj} ["be hot"]) is used in the imperative form, the suffixes {-'egh} (reflexive suffix) and {-moH} (cause) are used as well...

yItuj'eghmoH Heat yourself! ("Cause yourself to be hot!")

yItaD'eghmoH Freeze yourself! ("Cause yourself to be frozen!")

Okrand has two other non-imperative examples:

quv'eghmoH he/she honors him/herself (st.k 11/1997)

muptaHvIS tay''eghmoH QeHDaj Hoch All his rage focused in one blow (PB)

However - and with Okrand there is always a "however"! - there are some peculiarities with {-'egh}. Here are two of them:

(st.k 7/1999): Though not common, it is also possible to use {tatlh} with the reflexive suffix {-'egh} ("do something to oneself") to convey a meaning similar to that of {chegh}: pa'Daq jItatlh'egh "I return to the room" ... The {tatlh'egh} form seems to suggest that the doer of the action is forcing himself/herself to do something, perhaps because it is difficult or not desirable.

tatlh return (something) (v) chegh return (to a place) (v)

(HQ 10.2:8-9): There are some special uses of the reflexive forms of the finger verbs. For example, while {ghIchwIj vISIq} means "I touch my nose with my index finger" and {ghIchwIjDaq jISIq} means "I point at my nose with my index finger", the phrase {ghIchwIjDaq jISIq'egh} (with {–'egh} "oneself"), literally "I use at myself my index finger at my nose", is used for "I pick my nose with my index finger". Similarly, {nujDajDaq rIl'egh ghu}, literally "at his/her mouth, the baby uses at him/herself his/her thumb", is used for "the baby sucks its thumb". [...] It also works with the toe verbs: {nujDajDaq mar'egh ghu} "the baby sucks its big toe".

SIq use the index finger (v) rIl use the thumb (v) mar use the big toe (v)

[Yes Aurélie, there is a different verb for each finger and toe!]

-- Voragh tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a' Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

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

Am 05.10.2016 um 19:29 schrieb SuStel:

Thus, /what/ you say is not the object of the verb of speech.

As an addition to this, we know what can be the object of the verb "speak/talk": - a speech: {SoQ vIjatlh} - a language: {vIraS Hol vIjatlh} -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net

It just came to me.. When we say that the prefix trick (the usual one and the {-lu'} variant) applies only for the first and second person object, do we mean only for the first and second person singular object, or for the first and second person plural object as well ? qunnoH On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:

SuStel:

...

...

Thus, /what/ you say is not the object of the verb of speech.

Lieven:

...

As an addition to this, we know what can be the object of the verb "speak/talk": - a speech: {SoQ vIjatlh} - a language: {vIraS Hol vIjatlh}

If you want it from the source, Okrand wrote on startrek.klingon (6/1997) - slightly edited for legibility:

The object of {jatlh} "speak" is that which is spoken. Thus, it's OK to say "speak a language", for example:

tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh you speak Klingon

But it's also OK to say "speak an address, speak a lecture", for example {SoQ Dajatlh} "you speak an address" or, more colloquially, "you deliver an address" or "you make a speech". To say simply {jatlh} "he/she speaks" implies "he/she speaks it}, where "it" is a language or a lecture or whatever. The indirect object of {jatlh}, when expressed, is the hearer/listener. Thus:

qama'pu'vaD tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh you speak Klingon to the prisoners

qama'pu'vaD SoQ Dajatlh you make a speech to the prisoners" [...]

The verb {jatlh} can also be used when giving direct quotations:

tlhIngan jIH jatlh he/she says, "I am a Klingon"

jatlh tlhIngan jIH he/she says, "I am a Klingon"

(With verbs of saying, such as {jatlh}, the phrase that is being said or cited may come before or after the verb.) If the speaker is first or second person, the pronominal prefix indicating 'no object' is used:

tlhIngan jIH jIjatlh I say, "I am a Klingon"

tlhIngan jIH bIjatlh you say, "I am a Klingon"

There are instances where the pronominal prefix marks a big distinction in meaning:

tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh you speak Klingon

tlhIngan Hol bIjatlh you say [the phrase], "Klingon language"

-- Voragh tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a' Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

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

On 6 October 2016 at 13:18, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

and since we're on the subject, it would be great if someone could explain, why the prefix trick applies only to first and second person object (singular or plural).

why can't I say {vIghro' DInob jay'} for "we give them the f*** cat" ?

Because {vIghro' DInob} means "we give the cats", {vIghro'} being the object of {nob}. The suffix {-mey} is optional, and the plurality of the cats comes from the {DI-} prefix. If it were possible to apply the "prefix trick" here, the sentence would have an ambiguous meaning. -- De'vID

On 6 October 2016 at 14:24, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

the prefix trick is used only for first and second person singular object, or it can be used for first and second person plural object as well ?

tIqwIj Sa'angnIS. -- De'vID

Hm, why only for first and second person? I don't have my KGT at hand right now, but I think in those situations where a third person object is actually marked on the verb by a prefix, the prefix trick (aka dative shift) should be possible, shouldn't it? Cf.: Situation: The soldiers will give you (e.g. their prisoner) to the emperor. {ghaHvaD SoH nInob.} = They give you to him. {SoH lunob.} = They give him you. Y'all seem to have excluded this variant. Did Okrand explicitly rule this out or state that the prefix trick only works for 1st and 2nd person? Or was it an assumption? - André 2016-10-06 15:14 GMT+02:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:

De'vID:

...

tIqwIj Sa'angnIS

"I need to show you (plural) my heart". Since I see no ambiguity here, I'll take that as a "yes", and add to my notes that the prefix trick can be used for first and second person plural objects as well.

If I'm wrong in this conclusion, then someone please do correct me.

qunnoH I love you all

On 6 Oct 2016 4:07 p.m., "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 6 October 2016 at 14:24, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

...

the prefix trick is used only for first and second person singular object, or it can be used for first and second person plural object as well ?

tIqwIj Sa'angnIS.

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

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

Thanks, that answers it. 2016-10-06 16:07 GMT+02:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:

On 10/6/2016 10:03 AM, André Müller wrote:

...

Hm, why only for first and second person? I don't have my KGT at hand right now, but I think in those situations where a third person object is actually marked on the verb by a prefix, the prefix trick (aka dative shift) should be possible, shouldn't it?

Cf.: Situation: The soldiers will give you (e.g. their prisoner) to the emperor. {ghaHvaD SoH nInob.} = They give you to him. {SoH lunob.} = They give him you.

Y'all seem to have excluded this variant. Did Okrand explicitly rule this out or state that the prefix trick only works for 1st and 2nd person? Or was it an assumption?

"When the indirect object (in this case, the hearer) is first or second person, the pronominal prefix which normally indicates first or second person object may be used."

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name

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

On 10/6/2016 2:22 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:

I just realized, Aurélie, that you began this thread with the salutation <Hoch Savan>, but it seems not to have elicited comment. I wish I had a darsek for every time I've been corrected for using such a construction, in which a noun stands in the place of a first or second person subject or object. Some think this violates the rule of rom <accord>, which says the prefix must agree with the subject and object, because (and this is the part I dispute) nouns, common or proper, are inherently third person. This second part is not a rule in Klingon, and I maintain that in such cases the noun is an appositive to the unexpressed pronoun.

I interpreted it as direct address: *Hoch, Savan*/everyone, I salute you./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

*@SuStel*: thanks for clarifying the correct use of verbs of speech! All duly noted ​:)​ *@Lieven*: 1/

Also note the pronoun {net}, which is translated as "one" in English. It may be similar to the French "on".

Mmmh I checked this on the Klingon Dictionary, and looking at the examples I think the French “on” cannot be used as an equivalent here. In the case of {net], French would rather use structures such as “il s’avère que” (it turns out that…) or “Cela se sait que… / C’est bien connu que…(it is known that)”. Thus:

{qama'pu' DIHoH net Sov} <One knows we kill prisoners.>

would translate as < Cela se sait que nous tuons les prisonniers > (it is known that we kill prisoners) and

{Qu'vaD lI' net tu'bej} <One certainly finds it useful for the mission.>

would translate as < Cela va certainement s’avérer utile pour la mission > (this will certainly turn out / prove to be useful for the mission). In both examples, if we use “on” in French, most likely it would be misunderstood as “we”. ​2/​ Also {nu-} "he/she/it/they [does something to] us" (French *nous*) and

possibly {tu-} "you (plural) [do something to] me" (French *tous* or Spanish *tu*, which is singular of course but still means "you").

qeS QaQ ‘oH, qatlho’ ! *@mIp'av, SuStel*

I interpreted it as direct address: Hoch, Savan everyone, I salute you.

Regarding < Hoch Savan >, I actually meant it as “I salute you all”. Maybe I should have written < Hoch tlhIH Savan > instead? ​Thanks a lot! ~mughwI'​ 2016-10-06 21:30 GMT+02:00 Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com>:

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:31 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

...

On 10/6/2016 2:22 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:

I just realized, Aurélie, that you began this thread with the salutation <Hoch Savan>, but it seems not to have elicited comment. I wish I had a darsek for every time I've been corrected for using such a construction, in which a noun stands in the place of a first or second person subject or object. Some think this violates the rule of rom <accord>, which says the prefix must agree with the subject and object, because (and this is the part I dispute) nouns, common or proper, are inherently third person. This second part is not a rule in Klingon, and I maintain that in such cases the noun is an appositive to the unexpressed pronoun.

I interpreted it as direct address: *Hoch, Savan** everyone, I salute you.*

mughmeH mIwvam Dalo'bogh lo'nIS Hoch 'e' ra'chugh marq 'oqranD, jIlob.

~mIp'av

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

Aurélie :

...

qeS QaQ ‘oH, qatlho’ !

De'vID :

Unlike many Earth languages, which are noun-centric, Klingon is verb- centric. {qeS QaQ 'oH} somehow "feels" odd in Klingon. A better way to express this is {QaQ qeS}. An even better way is using the verb {qeS} with a suffix instead: {bIqeSchu'}.

I quite agree with De'vId, but Okrand had the same idea as Aurélie on the old startrek.expert.okrand group (August 06, 1996) when responding to a suggestion of d'Armond Speers -- ironically about ways of translating into Klingon: {jIQochbe'}. When the dictionary lacks a word that you need (or think you need), the best approach is to think of other ways to say the same thing. This not only gets your idea across, it also helps you become more familiar with Klingon. {qeS QaQ}. AFAIK Okrand has never used the verb {qeS} "advise" - although it seems fairly straightforward - but did create the nomen agentis {qeSwI'}: jagh HIvrup SuvwI' Haqpa' DIvI' qeSwI' The warrior was prepared to attack the enemy until the Federation advisor intervened. (KGT 151) -- Voragh tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a' Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

SuStel:

I'm not entirely certain that *Hoch* *> tlhIH* means *all of you*

Would you agree though that it means "all you" ? qunnoH ghogh HablI'wIjvo' vIngeHta' On 7 Oct 2016 4:44 p.m., "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 10/7/2016 9:31 AM, Aurélie Demonchaux wrote:

*@mIp'av, SuStel*

...

I interpreted it as direct address: Hoch, Savan everyone, I salute you.

Regarding < Hoch Savan >, I actually meant it as “I salute you all”. Maybe I should have written < Hoch tlhIH Savan > instead?

As mIp'av indicated, this is a bit of a controversial point. I'm not entirely certain that *Hoch tlhIH* means *all of you,* and even if it does, whether you can then elide the *tlhIH* and still maintain the genitive *Hoch* construction. For a noun-noun construction, you kind of need both nouns, or so it seems to me.

I think the impulse to try to say "you all" in Klingon comes from the lack in some languages, like English, of a formal second-person plural. I grant that *Savan* could mean *I salute some of you, but not necessarily all of you,* but when you stick it at the top of a message directed at a group, it's pretty much a given that you're referring to everyone who receives the message. *tlhIH Savan,* or just *Savan,* would be perfectly acceptable, and not controversial.

-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name

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

Okrand rarely uses {net}, but here are three more examples FYI: vImuHlu' net wuqHa' My death sentence was commuted! (ENT "Affliction") neHmaH Da'el net tu' [You are] Caught breaching the Neutral Zone. (MKE) Duj ghajchugh pagh, beylI'vo' 'oH Daje' net chaw' If [ship is] unowned, you may buy it from the Bank. (MKE) -- Voragh On Behalf Of Aurélie Demonchaux Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 8:31 AM @Lieven: Also note the pronoun {net}, which is translated as "one" in English. It may be similar to the French "on". Mmmh I checked this on the Klingon Dictionary, and looking at the examples I think the French “on” cannot be used as an equivalent here. In the case of {net], French would rather use structures such as “il s’avère que” (it turns out that…) or “Cela se sait que… / C’est bien connu que…(it is known that)”. Thus: {qama'pu' DIHoH net Sov} <One knows we kill prisoners.> would translate as < Cela se sait que nous tuons les prisonniers > (it is known that we kill prisoners) and {Qu'vaD lI' net tu'bej} <One certainly finds it useful for the mission.> would translate as < Cela va certainement s’avérer utile pour la mission > (this will certainly turn out / prove to be useful for the mission). In both examples, if we use “on” in French, most likely it would be misunderstood as “we”. ​

Lieven:

BTW, I always memorized {jI-} with french "je".

Also {nu-} "he/she/it/they [does something to] us" (French *nous*) and possibly {tu-} "you (plural) [do something to] me" (French *tous* or Spanish *tu*, which is singular of course but still means "you"). -- Voragh tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a' Ca'Non Master of the Klingons