rotlh be tough (v) I don’t have a source listed in my notes, so I imagine it’s from TKD. -- Voragh From: nIqolay Q On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com<mailto:bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com>> wrote: It made perfect sense to me. The tardigrade isn't strong, so HoS or HoSghaj don't make sense. It's hardy, which is a different sort of opposite to puj. For "hardy", as in "tough, durable", I might use something like: SIQlaH "can endure" taHlaH "can go on" 'omlaH "can resist" cherghlaH "can tolerate" roSlu'chugh HoStaH "takes a lickin', keeps on tickin'" (chaq Saghchu'be' qechvam...)

The only interesting points of this passage are the following:

qaStaHvIS poHvam, chImchu'bogh loghDaq > taHlaHtaH tarDIghaD, tera' Ha'DIbaHHom pujHa’qu’.

The {tera' Ha'DIbaHHom} which follows the {taHlaHtaH tarDIghaD} separated from it by a comma, is rather nice because it serves to explain to the reader, what this tarDIghaD actually is. The separation by the comma, of the words which follow it, recreate/resemble the way someone would change the tone of his voice if he was actually speaking these words, in order to further define the nature of the tarDIghaD he is talking about.

pa' chaw' ngoqvam baghHa’meH ’oH, De'wI' motlh lo'laH. 'ach Do' 'e' ta' neHbe' 'oH.

And here, the interesting part is the {'ach Do'} before the {'e'}. A long time ago I had written {yadda yadda yadda. 'ach 'e' yadda}. Then, two experienced members of this list started to debate whether someone could indeed use a {'ach} before the {'e'}. If I remember correctly, then, no consensus finally took place. But this tarDIghaD passage, shows that perhaps we can indeed have a {'ach} before an {'e'}. On the other hand, since the exact sentence goes {yadda yadda yadda. 'ach Do' 'e' yadda}, perhaps someone could argue, that we don't actually have a {'ach} before the {'e'}, but rather an adverb, in this case {Do'}, which all agree is something which is definitely permitted. And in this case the interpretation of the sentence would be {yadda yadda yadda. 'ach (Do' 'e' yadda)}. But even if the strictest interpretation of the above debate is assumed to be correct, and one cannot place a {'ach} right before a {'e'} in a sao, then according to the tarDighaD passage, one could use it as a workaround to this obstacle, to write {yadda yadda yadda. 'ach adverb 'e' yadda}. So, the question is whether the tarDIghaD passage is considered canon. Alternatively, someone could do whatever the ghe''or he likes, without losing any sleep over canon, tardigrades, opinions of experts, or little devils and angels dancing on one's shoulder giving him advice, and trying to sway him in one or another direction.. qunnoq On Sep 13, 2017 6:49 PM, "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote: *jagh yIbuStaH! *Sometimes I get so into the habit of finding alternate ways to phrase words I forget to check if the word itself already exists. On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:

*rotlh* be tough (v)

I don’t have a source listed in my notes, so I imagine it’s from TKD.

-- Voragh

*From:* nIqolay Q

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:

It made perfect sense to me. The tardigrade isn't strong, so HoS or HoSghaj don't make sense. It's hardy, which is a different sort of opposite to puj.

For "hardy", as in "tough, durable", I might use something like:

*SIQlaH* "can endure"

*taHlaH* "can go on"

*'omlaH* "can resist"

*cherghlaH* "can tolerate"

*roSlu'chugh HoStaH *"takes a lickin', keeps on tickin'" (*chaq Saghchu'be' qechvam...*)

_______________________________________________ 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

I don't know who actually wrote it. loghaD wrote {Kaspersky chaw' ngoq chovwI' <https://password.kaspersky.com/klingon/>vaD mu'vam lo'lu'} Since he wrote {lo'lu'} and not {vIlo'}, then obviously someone else must have written it. qunnoq On Sep 13, 2017 8:03 PM, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 9/13/2017 12:30 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:

...

qaStaHvIS poHvam, chImchu'bogh loghDaq > taHlaHtaH tarDIghaD, tera' Ha'DIbaHHom pujHa’qu’.

The {tera' Ha'DIbaHHom} which follows the {taHlaHtaH tarDIghaD} separated from it by a comma, is rather nice because it serves to explain to the reader, what this tarDIghaD actually is.

The separation by the comma, of the words which follow it, recreate/resemble the way someone would change the tone of his voice if he was actually speaking these words, in order to further define the nature of the tarDIghaD he is talking about.

This is a common way to indicate noun phrases in apposition.

...

pa' chaw' ngoqvam baghHa’meH ’oH, De'wI' motlh lo'laH. 'ach Do' 'e' ta' neHbe' 'oH.

And here, the interesting part is the {'ach Do'} before the {'e'}.

[...]

So, the question is whether the tarDIghaD passage is considered canon.

Canon? Isn't this just a translation of something by loghaD?

-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name

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

Am 13.09.2017 um 19:44 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:

Since he wrote {lo'lu'} and not {vIlo'}, then obviously someone else must have written it.

On a recent post in Facebook, De'vID perfectly wrote it when he said that "the answer to every question is <check the wiki>." http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Kaspersky says that it was translated by Andrew Miller. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher