[As always, it’s okay to skip long messages like this one. Read only if you find it entertaining. I’m not offended by being skipped.] I deeply respect the loyalty that others have shown the group; loyalty that I abandoned when I left. I enjoyed being one of the contributors to the foundation of the group, but foundations don’t keep the rain off your head. Those of you who have provided the roof with your continued dedication deserve more respect and appreciation than I do. I’m not here to shake things up or make it different. I don’t want to cause stress to those who have memories of past conflicts. I just want to join in the common mission to gain skill in the language and have some fun while we’re at it. The main skill I have to offer is that I’m uncommonly good at figuring out how to express ideas and thoughts and feelings with unusual clarity with the limited tool set of a very conservative interpretation of allowed Klingon grammar. In the past, I have attempted to passionately enforce that conservative interpretation, not budging an inch until Okrand, himself, says it’s okay to loosen up about things. I’m not that guy anymore. The language is yours and his. I’m just one of the users, tagging along. For those who don’t know me, I would suggest looking at the Wiki, but to be honest, I think Klingonists are among the most interesting people I’ve ever met, and the bios there are, shall we say, not as interesting as the people they attempt to describe. I’m sure I somehow contributed toward that. Perhaps it is completely my fault. I don’t remember. I’m old. That happens a lot. Here’s my current version of my bio, and I highly recommend that others who deserve better bios than they have in the Wiki (a.k.a. everybody there) consider spicing things up a bit with a more interesting bio. I’m not posting it directly to the Wiki because I don’t want to shove an egotistically rude change to the way things are there. I offer it here so that people can decide whether or not we should all change the bios to be more like this, giving new people a better idea of the peculiar version of fun that we have here, or maybe it sucks and should never be allowed on the wiki. [wave hand soothingly] "Move along. These are not the words you are looking for": One of the 12 attendees of qep’a’ wa’DIch; one of six attending for the entire contiguous week. One of the third wave of beings capable of Klingon speech. (Wave 1: HoD Qanqor at the Klingon Camp that he and Seqram attended a year before qep’a’ wa’DIch. Wave 2: HoD Qanqor and Seqram at qep’a’ wa’DIch. Wave 3: those at qep’a’ cha’DIch, having spent the past year acting on the inspiration of qep’a’ wa’DIch.) One of the Beginners’ Grammarians. Author of the AKD (Annotated Klingon Dictionary), the first collection of all Klingon words from all canon sources with sources sited. Others had word lists, but no one else had thought of siting sources before, so this was a useful new resource for resolving arguments about vocabulary. Marc Okrand asked for a copy during one of the qep’a'mey, since at that time, he did not have a single, alphabetized in English or Klingon, list of his own words from all sources, with notes on inconsistencies between E->K and K->E sides of TKD. Came up with the idea that became the New Words List on KLI’s Web site and maintained it for more than a decade (currently maintained by ghunchu’wI’), with much technical assistance from Seqram. Sang bass in the Klingon Quartet organized by HoD Qanqor. Attended the first ten qep’a’mey. While never achieving the ready vocabulary and conversational skills of Qov, ghuyDo wa’, HoD Qanqor, nIchyon, and others with such natural talent, doggedly worked to achieve a deep understanding of the grammar, and fought persistently to preserve the language’s grammar and vocabulary in the form Okrand invented and developed, stressing the difference between encoding English vs. translating into Klingon. Example: Klingon lacks a question word for “which”, as in, “Which weapon do you want?” Others tried to spread the idea that {nuq nuH DaneH?} would suffice, since as encoded English it could be interpreted as “What weapon do you want?”, though it literally means something like “You want the weapon of what?” as in perhaps “the scabbard’s weapon” or “the holster’s weapon”, or “the weapon of the box Carol Merril is carrying”. Far better to go back to the pre-lingual thought that was expressed in English as “Which weapon do you want?” and express it in Klingon as {nuHlIj yIwIv!} (Choose your weapon!). Interviewed Okrand for HolQeD, helping to clarify points of grammar with journalistic integrity, touching unresolved topics previously discussed on the Email list, intentionally avoiding wording that might influence Okrand’s explanations. One of the matlh jupna’pu’, granted the various Klingon words for “top” and “bottom”, and related terms. Stopped participating in the KLI after marrying someone disinterested in the language, and tiring of the years of arguing with those trying to add non-canon words or non-canon interpretations of grammar to common practice among Klingonists, and finally, discovering that the flip side of his love for the beauty of Klingon grammar is that he absolutely despises Okrand’s decisions about how to handle ditransitive verbs with {-moH}. Passion is passion. It’s not always pretty. I’m sure that would never pass guidelines for the Wiki, and probably will upset people, but come on, guys. Show some of the delightful sense of humor that has always arisen at qep’a’mey. Our bios should make us laugh, while respecting the truth, therein. We have accomplished many great, silly things. The “Who’s on first?” skit deserves a spot in the Wiki bio for both participants. It was BRILLIANT. Note that I did not list “Contributing editor of The Klingon Hamlet”. My name is on the title page, because I did start off in that role, but the author didn’t accept any of my edits. None. Zero. Seqram managed the diplomatic task of editing better than I did. They were kind to me to put my name on the title page so I could show friends for a brief moment of geek fame, but of course I’d feel guilty about it because I don’t deserve the credit I was given. It compensates for the credit I probably didn’t get for other stuff, but then, hey, I don’t remember what that stuff might have been, either, so what difference does it make, really? qatlh jIchegh? (Maybe I should rename myself {cheghwI’}) qaStaHvIS wejmaH DIS, wa' Huch vISuqmeH Qu’ vIghaj. DuSaQ’a’Daq, De’wI’mey (Macs and PCs) lo’bogh nuvpu’’e’ vIQaH. Qu’vam vISuqchoHDI’, DuSaQ’a’ malja’ leHlu’meH, “administrative assistants” neH vItoy’. roD yaHchaj vISuch. choH QurwI’. latlh pIn vISuq. ghojwI’pu’, ghojmoHwI’’a'pu’, “administrative assistants” je vItoy’, ‘ach not yaHchaj vISuch. ghoghHablI’ QInmey je neH vIlo’choHlaH. choHqa’ QurwI’. latlh pIn vISuq. ghojwI’pu’ vItoy’ ‘e’ vImev. yaHmey vISuchqa’laH. choHqa’ QurwI’. DaH Hoch Hol ghojmoHwI’’a’pu’ “administrative assistants” je vItoy’. roD vIQaHtaHvIS, ‘amerIqa’ngan Hol wIlo’, ‘ach wa’ Hol ghojmoHwI’’a’pu’ ‘amerIqa’ngan Hol lo’laHbe’: ‘amerIqa’ngan ghop Hol ghojmoHwI’’a’pu'. muQoylaHbe’. muja’laHbe’. jatlhlaHbe’. Qoy’eghlaHbe’mo’, ghoghchaj lo’laHbe’. vaj mughwI’ wIpoQ pagh QIt nuQchu'bogh QInHommey law' wIlo’nIS. ghu’vam vIDublaH ‘e’ vIwuq. ‘amerIqa’ngan ghop Hol vIghoj’lI’. vaj Hol vIqelqa’qu’. vaj tlhIngan Hol vIqelqa’. vaj jIchegh. SKI: chargwhI’ rattles on about how he came to decide to rejoin the list after all these years. charghwI’ ‘utlh

On Jan 28, 2019, at 9:50 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

charghwI' 'utlh:

...

If you want to convey ambivalence, then just say so: {Sojvam vIpar ‘e’ vISIv.}

I like this idea; I like it a lot.

Other than that..

charghwI', naDev Dacheghta' 'ej bIghItlhqa'ta', jIbel ! charghwI', I'm happy to be reading from you again !

qaStaHvIS poH vorgh, naDev bIghItlhbe'taHmo', jI'IQ. I missed you.

~ mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

I had heard that Seqram saw Qanqor at the camp and was so impressed that he went back and studied so that a year later he could be the OTHER guy who spoke Klingon. So, where did Seqram get started? Will Martin willmartin2@mac.com

On Jan 29, 2019, at 10:33 AM, Lawrence M. Schoen <klingonguy@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 10:20 AM Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com <mailto:willmartin2@mac.com>> wrote:

2. One of the third wave of beings capable of Klingon speech. (Wave 1: HoD Qanqor at the Klingon Camp that he and Seqram attended a year before qep’a’ wa’DIch. Wave 2: HoD Qanqor and Seqram at qep’a’ wa’DIch. Wave 3: those at qep’a’ cha’DIch, having spent the past year acting on the inspiration of qep’a’ wa’DIch.)

Actually, Seqram did not attend the Klingon Camp. On opening day it was just Qanqor, DaraQ, and myself. We were later joined by janSIy.

Wow, that was a loooong time ago.

Nice to see you again, charghwI'.

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

According to my memory, Seqram was DEFINITELY at qep’a’ wa’DIch. He and Qanqor spoke fluently between each other and the rest of us stood there, slack-jawed, occasionally rummaging through our dictionaries when we thought we recognized a word. Occasionally, one of them would say something really simple, very slowly to one of the rest of us, and we’d slowly decipher it, and then want to respond, but didn’t know the words… We’d look them up… It was pathetic. They really tried to include and encourage us, but we had to go back and learn via the list for another year before being able to hold up our end of a simple conversation. Will Martin willmartin2@mac.com

On Jan 29, 2019, at 10:57 AM, Lawrence M. Schoen <klingonguy@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 10:46 AM Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com <mailto:willmartin2@mac.com>> wrote: I had heard that Seqram saw Qanqor at the camp and was so impressed that he went back and studied so that a year later he could be the OTHER guy who spoke Klingon. So, where did Seqram get started?

These things blur in my memory. I *believe* Seqram attended the first qep'a', because I seem to recall that until he missed attending a recent conference he was one of only three people who had been to all of them. Now that distinction belongs to only Qanqor and myself.

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

On Jan 29, 2019, at 11:04 AM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:

... meqlIj QIjmeH lut vIlaD 'e' vItIv. lutlIjDaq “'amerI'qa'ngan Hol” bIjatlh 'e' vItu'. meqlIj vIyaj 'e' vIHar (loQ per “DIvI' Hol” vIpar, Holmey law' jatlh yuQjIjDIvI'ngan 'e' vIpIHmo'), 'ach qatlh “ngan” ngaS Hol per Dalo'bogh? motlh Hol per Daq, qar'a'? (Daq 'oHbe'bej “tlhIngan”'e', 'ach “DIvI'ngan Hol” jatlhlu'be’.)

pIj jIghItlhDI’ jI[spell]Ha’. DIvI’ Hol vIlo’DI’, mulughmoH De’wI’wIj, ‘ach tlhIngan Hol laDlaHbe’ De’wI’wIj vaj muQaHbe'laH. vaj naDev jIbachHa’DI’, Sov Hoch tlhInganpu’. rut tlhIngan Hol vIghItlhtaHvIS, jIlugh ‘ej mu’meywIj lughHa’moH De’wI’wIj. wanI’vam vItu’be’chugh, muQaHHa’moHmo’ De’wI’wIj jIQaghlaw’.

tugh “England” pongmeH tlhIngan Hol mu' wISovchoH 'e' vItul, “England Hol” wIrIchlaH vIneHmo’.

maj. mu’vam wIHutlhmo’ jImer. Daq pongmey law’ wIghaj. pong ghaj Daqvam net pIH.

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

charghwI’ ‘utlh

On Jan 29, 2019, at 10:14, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

This flexibility of objects is why you can simultaneously have qaja'pu' I told you and lut vIja'pu' I told the story. In the first case there's no direct object to get in the way of the indirect object being the syntactic object of the verb. In the second the verb has an explicit direct object. If you wanted to say whom you told the story to, you would say puqvaD lut vIja'. This isn't even a -moH issue. Both direct and indirect objects can go in the object position, but if you have both the direct object wins and the indirect object goes to -vaD.

Interesting analysis. I actually like this as an explanation for the prefix trick as well. You have two objects as well, but since the indirect object is indicated by the prefix, neither needs to take -vaD, although the unstated (because it’s encoded in the prefix) object is the one that normally would. It’s similar to your example of qaja'pu' which has an “indirect” object only, except with an explicit “direct” object as well. For transitive verbs with -moH I’m still trying to wrap my head around exactly what’s happening there (e.g. puqvaD nIQ vISopmoH) but I’m happy to handwave it away with “objects are flexible” magic dust for now.

This description of the issue at hand is very well said; eloquently and accurately put. It’s not that I don’t understand it. I just don’t like it. I don’t have the right to suggest that it is anything but the complete, perfect truth. My response to it is visceral and beyond my control, and I’m not interested in having anyone else join me in my disapproval. It’s closer to the way that HoD Qanqor dislikes the suggestion that he should be named Qanqor HoD. I had an understanding of things that predated the more detailed explanation by many years. Upon seeing that mine was a misunderstanding, I find myself incapable of adjusting to this specific change. I should. I know I should. I can’t. I might even like the idea of making the change. Maybe someday, I can achieve the change. Until then, I am stubbornly wrong at an uncorrectable internal level. The part of me that loves the language won’t let go. I wrestle with it, but it’s got a grip that is beyond my capacity to describe in a way that others might understand. It’s wholly irrational. Chalk it up to knowing the language of an earlier Emperor or of a regional dialect. I don’t want a schism. I’m not interested in being a leader for those who will join me in doing it my way. I just don’t want to use that particular grammatical form. I will break things down into smaller sentences in order to avoid it, without being wrong. I will let it pass without comment when I see others using the correct form. I can understand it. I just can’t speak or write the words, not because I don’t know how. I just can’t. I know you are thoroughly right on this, and I am wrong. I am doomed to continue to be wrong for the foreseeable future. It’s a side effect of caring about the language. It’s an ugly, undesirable side effect. I don’t recommend it to anyone. charghwI’ ‘utlh

On Jan 29, 2019, at 11:14 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 1/29/2019 10:20 AM, Will Martin wrote:

...

discovering that the flip side of his love for the beauty of Klingon grammar is that he absolutely despises Okrand’s decisions about how to handle ditransitive verbs with {-moH}. I've come to a much fuller understanding of how and why this works the way it does. I can actually think in these terms now. Please allow me to illustrate it for you. You may find it useful in reconciling yourself to the way things are.

First of all, think of Klingon grammar as a lot less rigid than we used to in the old days. We used to think that when adding -moH, the subject becomes the object, period. The reality is more nuanced than that.

Klingon syntax has subjects and objects. But note that when we say object, we're not necessarily saying direct or indirect object. TKD doesn't make the distinction until the Addendum, wherein it first introduces the idea that -vaD can mark indirect objects.

In Klingon, an object can be either direct or indirect, and sometimes the difference is purely contextual. For instance, we have seen that we can say puq ghojmoH HoD The captain teaches the child; the captain causes the child to learn, but we can also say 'otlhQeD ghojmoH HoD The captain teaches physics; the captain causes (someone) to learn physics. In the first case, the puq is not having something done to him or her; he or she is doing something. Therefore, the puq is not a direct object. It must be an indirect object. In the second case, 'otlhQeD is having something done to it (it is being learned), so it is a direct object. Notice that being caused to do something does not count as having something done to you; what's important is whether the root verb is an action being done to you.

When you want to talk about both the thing being acted upon ('otlhQeD, the direct object) and the thing who benefits from or receives the action (puq, the indirect object), the direct object takes the object position and the indirect object gets marked with -vaD and goes in the front. puqvaD 'otlhQeD ghojmoH HoD. Basically, the direct object trumps the indirect object and pushes it away from the verb. The captain causes something to happen; learning happens, physics is learned, the child is the target of all this.

This flexibility of objects is why you can simultaneously have qaja'pu' I told you and lut vIja'pu' I told the story. In the first case there's no direct object to get in the way of the indirect object being the syntactic object of the verb. In the second the verb has an explicit direct object. If you wanted to say whom you told the story to, you would say puqvaD lut vIja'. This isn't even a -moH issue. Both direct and indirect objects can go in the object position, but if you have both the direct object wins and the indirect object goes to -vaD.

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org