Relevance of language ability to third person singular pronouns
I had always thought that the distinction between {'oH} and {ghaH} was the same as the distinction between {bIH} and {chaH}, i.e., that {ghaH} is reserved for beings capable of language. It would seem natural that the singular and plural third-person pronouns would be divided up the same way, but it was recently pointed out to me that TKD never actually says that {‘oH} is for things and beings that are incapable of languages, or that {ghaH} is exclusively for language-capable beings. But just because that would seem natural doesn’t mean that it is so. It seems to me that it is up to interpretation whether {ghaH} can be used for non-language capable beings. I can see arguments in favor of the {‘oH}/{ghaH} divide being in the same place as the {bIH}/{chaH} divide, and I can also see arguments in favor of the divide being in different places for those two pairs of pronouns. Reasons why {ghaH} might only be for language-capable beings: * It makes sense to think as {‘oH} and {bIH} as being singular and plural variants of a language-incapable third person pronoun, and {ghaH} and {chaH} as being singular and plural variants of a language-capable third person pronoun. * The first- and second- person possessive suffixes are inflected based on the language capability of the possessed, regardless of the number of the possessed. Reasons why {ghaH} might not necessarily be only for language-capable buildings: * The third-person possessive suffixes make a distinction only for the number of the possessor, and not for language ability of the possessor, nor language ability nor number of the possessed. This suggests that while language capability does affect inflections in some places, it needn’t do so in other places that are for the most part similar for places that are inflected based on language ability. * There is nothing suggesting that the distinction between the predisposition suffixes {-beH} and {-rup} has anything to do with language ability; in fact, I rather believe that it’s a distinction between inanimate and animate rather than between language incapable and language capable. This suggests that Klingons distinguish between inanimate and animate (with the possibility of language incapable animate beings in the animate category) at least some of the time. What do you all think about {'oH} versus {ghaH}? Has Maltz ever said anything to point us more strongly towards one interpretation or the other, with regards to whether {ghaH} might apply to beings incapable of language?
On 9/7/2018 5:49 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
I had always thought that the distinction between {'oH} and {ghaH} was the same as the distinction between {bIH} and {chaH}, i.e., that {ghaH} is reserved for beings capable of language. It would seem natural that the singular and plural third-person pronouns would be divided up the same way, but it was recently pointed out to me that TKD never actually says that {‘oH} is for things and beings that are incapable of languages, or that {ghaH} is exclusively for language-capable beings. But just because that would seem natural doesn’t mean that it is so.
It's an interesting observation. If correct, what's the difference between *ghaH* and *'oH? * To support the idea, you need to find somewhere in canon that uses *ghaH* or *'oH* in a way that shows that difference: some being capable of using language being referred to as *'oH,* or something not a being capable of using language being referred to as *ghaH.* Personally, I think Okrand just assumed that the difference between /it/ and /he/she/him/her/ showed up the difference well enough. It's the fact that English /they/them/ can cover plural /it/ as well as /he/she/him/her/ that warrants special mention of the difference between *bIH* and *chaH,* not the exclusivity of the capable-of-using-language status of the words. ** -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Sep 7, 2018, at 17:49, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 9/7/2018 5:49 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote: I had always thought that the distinction between {'oH} and {ghaH} was the same as the distinction between {bIH} and {chaH}, i.e., that {ghaH} is reserved for beings capable of language. It would seem natural that the singular and plural third-person pronouns would be divided up the same way, but it was recently pointed out to me that TKD never actually says that {‘oH} is for things and beings that are incapable of languages, or that {ghaH} is exclusively for language-capable beings. But just because that would seem natural doesn’t mean that it is so. It's an interesting observation. If correct, what's the difference between ghaH and 'oH?
That’s exactly the question I’m asking. I’ve long thought the difference was (and I’m guessing most Klingonists think of it as): ghaH - single language capable being 'oH - single non-language capable being or inanimate object But since TKD never actually says this is the case, it seems possible to interpret the difference as: ghaH - single animate being (language capable or not) 'oH - single inanimate object The difference could be something other than the above two options, but I’m not creative enough to think of another alternative.
To support the idea, you need to find somewhere in canon that uses ghaH or 'oH in a way that shows that difference: some being capable of using language being referred to as 'oH, or something not a being capable of using language being referred to as ghaH.
Agreed. I’d be interested to see if there are any canon examples to provide stronger evidence of one interpretation or the other. I don’t think that {'oH} for a language capable being would be something we’d look for, though, since I’m not creative enough to come up where an interpretation where a language capable being would be anything other than {ghaH}. What we want to look for is pronominal references to animate beings that are not language capable, like a targh or a bo'Degh or whatever. {'oH} would imply that it has to do with whether the referent is capable of language, and {ghaH} would imply that it has to do with whether the referent is animate.
Personally, I think Okrand just assumed that the difference between it and he/she/him/her showed up the difference well enough. It's the fact that English they/them can cover plural it as well as he/she/him/her that warrants special mention of the difference between bIH and chaH, not the exclusivity of the capable-of-using-language status of the words.
Sure, but he/she/him/her doesn’t necessarily indicate language capability in English. Non-language capable beings can be hes and shes and hims and hers.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 9/7/2018 7:47 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
Personally, I think Okrand just assumed that the difference between /it/ and /he/she/him/her/ showed up the difference well enough. It's the fact that English /they/them/ can cover plural /it/ as well as /he/she/him/her/ that warrants special mention of the difference between *bIH* and *chaH,* not the exclusivity of the capable-of-using-language status of the words.
Sure, but he/she/him/her doesn’t necessarily indicate language capability in English. Non-language capable beings can be hes and shes and hims and hers.
English /he/ and /she/ (etc.) indicate sex or (more recently) gender identity, something that Klingon doesn't distinguish at all in its pronouns. In English a noun typically graduates from an /it/ to a /he/ or /she/ when it obtains a male/female gender that someone cares to mention. This doesn't happen in Klingon. Hence the question, when does a Klingon noun graduate from an *'oH* to a *ghaH?* It's not when the noun gains a gender. So when is it? -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Sep 7, 2018, at 19:20, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 9/7/2018 7:47 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
Personally, I think Okrand just assumed that the difference between it and he/she/him/her showed up the difference well enough. It's the fact that English they/them can cover plural it as well as he/she/him/her that warrants special mention of the difference between bIH and chaH, not the exclusivity of the capable-of-using-language status of the words.
Sure, but he/she/him/her doesn’t necessarily indicate language capability in English. Non-language capable beings can be hes and shes and hims and hers. English he and she (etc.) indicate sex or (more recently) gender identity, something that Klingon doesn't distinguish at all in its pronouns. In English a noun typically graduates from an it to a he or she when it obtains a male/female gender that someone cares to mention. This doesn't happen in Klingon. Hence the question, when does a Klingon noun graduate from an 'oH to a ghaH? It's not when the noun gains a gender. So when is it?
That remains the open question. :) If not when the noun becomes language capable, the other reasonable interpretation is when the noun becomes animate. Perhaps the same place where the difference between {-beH} and {-rup} manifests.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 08:20:13PM -0400, SuStel wrote:
English /he/ and /she/ (etc.) indicate sex or (more recently) gender identity, something that Klingon doesn't distinguish at all in its pronouns. In English a noun typically graduates from an /it/ to a /he/ or /she/ when it obtains a male/female gender that someone cares to mention. This doesn't happen in Klingon. Hence the question, when does a Klingon noun graduate from an *'oH* to a *ghaH?* It's not when the noun gains a gender. So when is it?
I personally think that it is the same distinction as bIH / chaH (although as a beginner my opinion shouldn't count for too much), but the question does get me thinking. In English we sometimes refer to an animal as an it, and sometimes as a he or she. Pets are almost always referred to as he / she, while animals that we aren't attached to as much are more likely to be referred to as it. I wonder if something similar goes on in Klingon, not with animals, but with computers that have a natural language interface. Would a Klingon who used such a computer regularly start to unconsciously refer to the computer as a ghaH? James
On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 at 05:45, James Stephenson <c4p7.fl1n7@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder if something similar goes on in Klingon, not with animals, but with computers that have a natural language interface. Would a Klingon who used such a computer regularly start to unconsciously refer to the computer as a ghaH?
This doesn't directly answer your question, but in English, ships are "she", while in Klingon, they're {'oH}. While Federation ships talk (or their computers do), the only instance I can recall of a Klingon talking ship or computer is in Discovery. (There's a scene where a device announces something about atmospheric pressurisation to L'Rell, but it's very brief and she does not refer to the device by a pronoun. But in any case, the Klingon wasn't written by Okrand.) -- De'vID
On Sep 7, 2018, at 23:47, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 at 05:45, James Stephenson <c4p7.fl1n7@gmail.com> wrote: I wonder if something similar goes on in Klingon, not with animals, but with computers that have a natural language interface. Would a Klingon who used such a computer regularly start to unconsciously refer to the computer as a ghaH?
This doesn't directly answer your question, but in English, ships are "she", while in Klingon, they're {'oH}. While Federation ships talk (or their computers do), the only instance I can recall of a Klingon talking ship or computer is in Discovery. (There's a scene where a device announces something about atmospheric pressurisation to L'Rell, but it's very brief and she does not refer to the device by a pronoun. But in any case, the Klingon wasn't written by Okrand.)
In Star Trek III, when (SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT!) the Klingon crew boards the Enterprise while the self destruct sequence is activated, one of Kruge’s officers reports “… the bridge appears to be run by computer. It is the only thing speaking.” Unfortunately, the audience’s universal translator was stuck in the on state for this scene so perhaps we’ll never know exactly how that line was delivered in the original Klingon.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Sat, Sep 8, 2018, 12:49 Daniel Dadap, <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
In Star Trek III, when (SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT!) the Klingon crew boards the Enterprise while the self destruct sequence is activated, one of Kruge’s officers reports “… the bridge appears to be run by computer. It is the only thing speaking.”
Unfortunately, the audience’s universal translator was stuck in the on state for this scene so perhaps we’ll never know exactly how that line was delivered in the original Klingon.
But the English translation says "it" not "she" (the voice of the Enterprise computer is female). So it's likely the Klingon would've been {'oH}. -- De'vID
Am 08.09.2018 um 06:47 schrieb De'vID:
This doesn't directly answer your question, but in English, ships are "she", while in Klingon, they're {'oH}.
The same things happens with animals. In English, dogs are usually referred to as "it" but when you know a dog personally, like a family member, people say she or he. In German it's different, since gender is part of words anyway. A dog is male until you find out it's female.
announces something about atmospheric pressurisation to L'Rell, but it's very brief and she does not refer to the device by a pronoun. But in any case, the Klingon wasn't written by Okrand.)
True. It was translated by Robyn Stewart aka Qov. episode DSC 1.04 "The Butcher's Knife cares not for the lamb's cry" at 0:27 the device says {ngI'chu' muD} "Atmosphere pressurization complete." BTW, the only person in the room is voq. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/DSC104
On Sep 8, 2018, at 09:29, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
The same things happens with animals. In English, dogs are usually referred to as "it" but when you know a dog personally, like a family member, people say she or he. In German it's different, since gender is part of words anyway. A dog is male until you find out it's female.
I think that’s dependent on the speaker. I personally never refer to dogs as “it”, even for an unfamiliar dog.
On Sat, Sep 8, 2018, 16:29 Lieven L. Litaer, <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 08.09.2018 um 06:47 schrieb De'vID:
announces something about atmospheric pressurisation to L'Rell, but it's very brief and she does not refer to the device by a pronoun. But in any case, the Klingon wasn't written by Okrand.)
True. It was translated by Robyn Stewart aka Qov.
episode DSC 1.04 "The Butcher's Knife cares not for the lamb's cry" at 0:27 the device says {ngI'chu' muD} "Atmosphere pressurization complete."
You mean at 27:00? (It's actually at around 27:11, at least in the version on my Netflix.) It doesn't say that, though. That's what the script says, but that line was flubbed. BTW, the only person in the room is voq.
bIlugh. -- De'vID
Am 08.09.2018 um 18:45 schrieb De'vID:
You mean at 27:00? (It's actually at around 27:11, at least in the version on my Netflix.)
Ah, yes, indeed. It's at 0:27:11. Sorry for being so inaccurate ;-)
It doesn't say that, though. That's what the script says, but that line was flubbed.
Well, if you start at exactly 27:11 (that is after this strang "sin" sound) then she says exactly {ngI' chu' muD}. Maybe that was the speaker's error, because like on the tapes Okrand says "ng as in thing, or hang", so the speaker might have had "thing" in her mind, and forgot to drop it while speaking the line. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/DSC104
On Sat, Sep 8, 2018, 19:33 Lieven L. Litaer, <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Well, if you start at exactly 27:11 (that is after this strang "sin" sound) then she says exactly {ngI' chu' muD}.
Maybe that was the speaker's error, because like on the tapes Okrand says "ng as in thing, or hang", so the speaker might have had "thing" in her mind, and forgot to drop it while speaking the line.
Qov has told the story of what happened, but I can't recall where. IIRC, the speaker was unable to pronounce initial {ng}, so they decided to have her say "sing" and have the sound editor cut it off, except that instruction was miscommunicated so the recording was cut off at the wrong end. Or something like that. -- De'vID
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 5:49 PM Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
What do you all think about {'oH} versus {ghaH}? Has Maltz ever said anything to point us more strongly towards one interpretation or the other, with regards to whether {ghaH} might apply to beings incapable of language?
On the old MSN expert forum, Marc Okrand said:
the question {yIH nuq?} "What is a tribble?" is exactly parallel to the statement {yIH 'oH} "It is a tribble"
[See http://klingonska.org/canon/1996-12-12b-news.txt for the full text of his message.] A tribble is an animate being. It gets the pronouns {'oH} and {nuq}, not {ghaH} and {'Iv}. -- ghunchu'wI'
On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 at 04:52, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 5:49 PM Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
What do you all think about {'oH} versus {ghaH}? Has Maltz ever said anything to point us more strongly towards one interpretation or the other, with regards to whether {ghaH} might apply to beings incapable of language?
On the old MSN expert forum, Marc Okrand said:
the question {yIH nuq?} "What is a tribble?" is exactly parallel to the statement {yIH 'oH} "It is a tribble"
[See http://klingonska.org/canon/1996-12-12b-news.txt for the full text of his message.]
A tribble is an animate being. It gets the pronouns {'oH} and {nuq}, not {ghaH} and {'Iv}.
But Klingons hate tribbles, so it might just be the case that tribbles are {'oH} whereas the beloved pet targ gets {ghaH}. ;-) While it's true that TKD 5.1 does not explicitly state that the distinction between {ghaH} and {'oH} is the same as that between {chaH} and {bIH}, the arrangement of the table strongly suggests that this is the case: {jIH} I, me {maH} we, us {SoH} you {tlhIH} you (plural) {ghaH} he/she, him/her {chaH} they, them {'oH} it {bIH} they, them {'e'} that {net} that It's a fairly obvious interpretation that the right column shows the plural corresponding to the left column. The sentence immediately following this table is: "The pronoun {chaH} they is used when it refers to a group of beings capable of using language; otherwise, {bIH} they is used." It seems to me that Okrand mentions this only because "they" is used for both in English and needed clarification. If the distinction between {ghaH} and {'oH} is in a different place than that between {chaH} and {bIH}, I'd have expected this to be mentioned. (However, the lack of mention of such a difference doesn't mean it doesn't exist, since TKD is meant to be a brief grammatical sketch.) In HolQeD 10:4, Okrand discusses birds that talk. He makes a point of saying that the usual suffix for birds is {-mey}, but that some Klingons use {-pu'} for birds which mimick speech. He does not mention whether they take {'oH} or {ghaH}, which could be interpreted either way. That is, it might be that the distinction between {'oH} and {ghaH} is so obviously the same as between {-mey} and {-pu'} as to be not worth mentioning (and hence those Klingons who use {-pu'} would use {ghaH}, and those who use {-mey} would use {'oH}). Or it might be that all animals always take {'oH} (or always take {ghaH}), and this doesn't change regardless of whether they talk. But in the latter case, the fact that a {yIH} is referred to using {'oH} implies that all animals are {'oH}. So in either interpretation, {'oH} is used for animals which don't talk. What's left open is whether those Klingons who use {-pu'} for talking birds would also use {ghaH}/{chaH} for them. -- De'vID
In his notes for ST6, Okrand translated the following: "The Federation is the enemy." {jagh ghaH DIvI''e'.} That actually surprised me; Following my instinct, I might have used {'oH} here, referring to the federation, but it's interesting that it seems to refer to {jagh} which obviously is a {ghaH}. This one detail may help or bring even more confusion. I found that in a documentary about constructed languages: http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/CreditedAsConLangers -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany"
On 9/8/2018 2:04 PM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
In his notes for ST6, Okrand translated the following:
"The Federation is the enemy." {jagh ghaH DIvI''e'.}
That actually surprised me; Following my instinct, I might have used {'oH} here, referring to the federation, but it's interesting that it seems to refer to {jagh} which obviously is a {ghaH}.
This one detail may help or bring even more confusion.
That just makes it worse. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Sat, Sep 8, 2018, 20:05 Lieven L. Litaer, <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
I found that in a documentary about constructed languages: http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/CreditedAsConLangers
His notes which didn't make it into the movie aren't *necessarily* canon, since he could've changes his mind during filming. (We've treated those ones which have appeared in HolQeD as canon, but I think only because HolQeD counts independently as a source of canon.) Also, the word *{Hovtretlh} which appears in one of the titles is very obviously someone's attempt to write "Star Trek" in "Klingon". -- De'vID
On 9/8/2018 8:21 PM, De'vID wrote:
His notes which didn't make it into the movie aren't *necessarily* canon, since he could've changes his mind during filming. (We've treated those ones which have appeared in HolQeD as canon, but I think only because HolQeD counts independently as a source of canon.)
HolQeD is not a canonical source. Okrand's writings in HolQeD are canonical, as they are anywhere else they appear. Stuff that, say, Krankor wrote in HolQeD is not canon. I consider notes that Okrand didn't publish himself to be noteworthy, if not completely canonical. They can show his thinking, but one of the reasons he didn't publish them could be, generally, that they weren't good enough for publishing. Without a statement making them canon, I consider them useful, but not absolute. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Sun, Sep 9, 2018, 03:10 SuStel, <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 9/8/2018 8:21 PM, De'vID wrote:
His notes which didn't make it into the movie aren't *necessarily* canon, since he could've changes his mind during filming. (We've treated those ones which have appeared in HolQeD as canon, but I think only because HolQeD counts independently as a source of canon.)
HolQeD is not a canonical source. Okrand's writings in HolQeD are canonical, as they are anywhere else they appear. Stuff that, say, Krankor wrote in HolQeD is not canon.
I thought it was obvious that I meant it's a source of canon when it presents Okrand's words. Sorry for not being clear enough. There are things in HolQeD like interviews with Okrand in there which weren't written by him, or things where someone relates something they heard from him. In contrast, on Facebook or Twitter or Livejournal or Discord or whatever, hearsay about what Okrand said doesn't count unless it's confirmed by multiple people. (This mailing list is intermediate in that eyewitness posts about events with a lot of KLI attendees, i.e., the qep'a' and qepHom, are generally trusted.) For example, Okrand has contributed to things at the Smithsonian or with the Washington Shakespeare company which people wrote about online, but which weren't accepted until they were corroborated by other multiple sources. -- De'vID
On Sat, Sep 8, 2018, 20:05 Lieven L. Litaer, wrote: I found that in a documentary about constructed languages: http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/CreditedAsConLangers
Am 09.09.2018 um 02:21 schrieb De'vID:
His notes which didn't make it into the movie aren't *necessarily* canon, since he could've changes his mind during filming. (We've treated those ones which have appeared in HolQeD as canon, but I think only because HolQeD counts independently as a source of canon.)
Also, the word *{Hovtretlh} which appears in one of the titles is very obviously someone's attempt to write "Star Trek" in "Klingon".
These are two absolutely different pairs of shoes! On one side, you have those titles who were created by some producers of the documentary who obviously had no idea what they're doing, and then we have those notes which are with a very high probability the original notes made by Okrand made for the production of ST6 -- I mean, honestly, why would he make up something only to show in that documentary? And just like with the ST5-notes from HolQeD, these words were not used on screen, but Okrand HAS written them. Am 09.09.2018 um 03:10 schrieb SuStel:
Without a statement making them canon, I consider them useful, but not absolute.
I agree. As long as something seems wrong, I would ignore it. But this one interesting sentence I quoted reveals an interesting way of thinking, even though it surely does not answer the other question which started this thread. Until it's explained in detail, we can't know for sure, I agree. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Maltz
On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 at 10:44, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
On Sat, Sep 8, 2018, 20:05 Lieven L. Litaer, wrote: I found that in a documentary about constructed languages: http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/CreditedAsConLangers
Am 09.09.2018 um 02:21 schrieb De'vID:
His notes which didn't make it into the movie aren't *necessarily* canon, since he could've changes his mind during filming. (We've treated those ones which have appeared in HolQeD as canon, but I think only because HolQeD counts independently as a source of canon.)
Also, the word *{Hovtretlh} which appears in one of the titles is very obviously someone's attempt to write "Star Trek" in "Klingon".
These are two absolutely different pairs of shoes!
I wasn't drawing any connection between them. I was commenting, as an aside, about the fact that in your link, you had a question mark for the translation of *{Hovtretlh}. It's very obvious what it's intended to be. It's intended to be the words "Star Trek".
On one side, you have those titles who were created by some producers of the documentary who obviously had no idea what they're doing,
They very clearly *did* know what they were doing. They were trying to produce an animation where the title words "Phonology", "Grammar", and "Translation" morph into text which visibly "looks like" Na'vi, Dothraki, and Klingon, under the constraint that the same-meaning text in each of the languages had the same number of blocks (letters). They would be extremely lucky if this happened to coincidentally work for one title in one language, but for all the titles in all the languages to coincide in this way would be a miracle. They very obviously chose "words" which looked good for the animation without regard for the meaning, sneaking in "Star Trek" as a joke. Their goal wasn't to translate Klingon.
and then we have those notes which are with a very high probability the original notes made by Okrand made for the production of ST6 -- I mean, honestly, why would he make up something only to show in that documentary?
Nobody has said he made them up. They're probably - I would even say definitely - his original notes. Okrand certainly has many more notes from his work on various projects than he's published, some of which are early drafts which were "discarded" in the sense that they contain ideas which were subsequently abandoned. I'm sure his early Star Trek III notes, for example, use {ma'} with the meaning "to tell". If such a note appeared in a documentary, it wouldn't mean that {ma'} means "to tell", it means that that was an idea at one point that he abandoned, which we already know. He's had plenty of opportunities to publish the notes shown in this documentary. His notes for Star Trek III became The Klingon Dictionary, and his notes for Star Trek V were published in HolQeD. At least some of his notes for Star Trek VI and Star Trek TNG went into creating the TKD Addendum, and his notes from DS9 and Voyager went into TKW and KGT. The fact that he hasn't explained anywhere that {DIvI'} is or can be referred to using {ghaH} or produced a sentence like {jagh ghaH DIvI''e'} anywhere else is a sign (though not one indicating a certainty) that that's an early draft where he made a mistake or changed his mind. And just like with the ST5-notes from HolQeD, these words were not used
on screen, but Okrand HAS written them.
But unlike the ST5 notes, he hasn't *published* them. I believe that makes them very different. When he publishes his notes, he edits them and cleans them up first (but, being human, of course he sometimes makes mistakes). When he's writing something for himself or for a small audience (like when he signs a book), he's sometimes written questionable things or been much less strict with rules. One example: in a "get well" letter to Glen Proechel written in 1998, he wrote {yIpIv!} This is despite that in KGT (published 1997), he makes a big deal out of having to add {-'eghmoH} when you give a command with a verb describing a state of being. I would class {jagh ghaH DIvI''e'} with {yIpIv!} It's something that maybe a Klingon *could* say, but it's not a good example to follow.
Am 09.09.2018 um 03:10 schrieb SuStel:
Without a statement making them canon, I consider them useful, but not absolute.
I agree. As long as something seems wrong, I would ignore it. But this one interesting sentence I quoted reveals an interesting way of thinking, even though it surely does not answer the other question which started this thread.
Until it's explained in detail, we can't know for sure, I agree.
It would be interesting if Okrand were to now declare that collections of things, like a federation, are grammatically singular but take on a different pronoun ({ghaH} or {'oH}) depending on what the collection is made of (i.e., whether it's made up of beings capable of language). I'm not sure he could do it now without contradicting canon (which he's free to do, of course). -- De'vID
Am 09.09.2018 um 02:21 schrieb De'vID:
I found that in a documentary about constructed languages: http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/CreditedAsConLangers
Also, the word *{Hovtretlh} which appears in one of the titles is very obviously someone's attempt to write "Star Trek" in "Klingon".
In the meanwhile, I have found out who this someone is: Bing. "Star Trek" is always translated by Bing as "Hov trek". When you set the language to Klingon pIqaD, the letter K is replaced by the Klingon letter for tlh. I've also checked the other titles, and they all are results of the Bing tanslator. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/CreditedAsConLangers
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 10:29, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 09.09.2018 um 02:21 schrieb De'vID:
Also, the word *{Hovtretlh} which appears in one of the titles is very obviously someone's attempt to write "Star Trek" in "Klingon".
In the meanwhile, I have found out who this someone is: Bing.
"Star Trek" is always translated by Bing as "Hov trek". When you set the language to Klingon pIqaD, the letter K is replaced by the Klingon letter for tlh.
I've also checked the other titles, and they all are results of the Bing tanslator.
jIyay'...be'. -- De'vID
On Sep 10, 2018, at 06:56, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 10:29, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote: Am 09.09.2018 um 02:21 schrieb De'vID:
I've also checked the other titles, and they all are results of the Bing tanslator.
jIyay'...be'.
wejpuH. HIvqa' bIng mughwI'; veqlargh qa'. not mev mughwI'vetlh lo'mey jay'.
At qepHom 2015 qurgh asked Okrand about this: (qurgh, 11/10/2015): I had a conversation with Marc about 'oH and ghaH and animals when I was at the qepHom. He said that if you (the speaker) believe you can communicate with a creature, then it's a ghaH, if you don't believe you can communicate with a creature, then it's 'oH. It's down the personal beliefs of the speaker, not a set formula. -- Voragh From: De'vID On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 at 04:52, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net<mailto:qunchuy@alcaco.net>> wrote: On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 5:49 PM Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net<mailto:daniel@dadap.net>> wrote: What do you all think about {'oH} versus {ghaH}? Has Maltz ever said anything to point us more strongly towards one interpretation or the other, with regards to whether {ghaH} might apply to beings incapable of language? On the old MSN expert forum, Marc Okrand said: the question {yIH nuq?} "What is a tribble?" is exactly parallel to the statement {yIH 'oH} "It is a tribble" A tribble is an animate being. It gets the pronouns {'oH} and {nuq}, not {ghaH} and {'Iv}. In HolQeD 10:4, Okrand discusses birds that talk. He makes a point of saying that the usual suffix for birds is {-mey}, but that some Klingons use {-pu'} for birds which mimick speech. He does not mention whether they take {'oH} or {ghaH}, which could be interpreted either way. That is, it might be that the distinction between {'oH} and {ghaH} is so obviously the same as between {-mey} and {-pu'} as to be not worth mentioning (and hence those Klingons who use {-pu'} would use {ghaH}, and those who use {-mey} would use {'oH}). Or it might be that all animals always take {'oH} (or always take {ghaH}), and this doesn't change regardless of whether they talk. But in the latter case, the fact that a {yIH} is referred to using {'oH} implies that all animals are {'oH}. So in either interpretation, {'oH} is used for animals which don't talk. What's left open is whether those Klingons who use {-pu'} for talking birds would also use {ghaH}/{chaH} for them. -- De'vID
ghItlh voragh:
At qepHom 2015 qurgh asked Okrand about this:
(qurgh, 11/10/2015): I had a conversation with Marc about 'oH and ghaH
and animals when I was at the qepHom. He said that if you (the speaker)
believe you can communicate with a creature, then it's a ghaH, if you don't
believe you can communicate with a creature, then it's 'oH. It's down the
personal beliefs of the speaker, not a set formula.
Right you are! I had this filed in my brain as a discussion of how to determine what is "language using" and what is "not language using", but Okrand is also clearly indicating that the difference between {'oH} and {ghaH} is the abillity to communicate and not whether or not it is animate.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:50 AM David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com> wrote:
Right you are! I had this filed in my brain as a discussion of how to determine what is "language using" and what is "not language using", but Okrand is also clearly indicating that the difference between {'oH} and {ghaH} is the abillity to communicate and not whether or not it is animate.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Okrand is actually indicating that the difference is a function of whether the speaker BELIEVES the other party can communicate. Now, with that in mind, we can move the argument to whether "communicate" is the same as "uses language." Because based on the qurgh's statement, when I talk to my targ, we're communicating, and thus he merits {ghaH} and not {'oH}. No disrespect to my targ, but I'm not changing his pronoun based on this.
On Sep 10, 2018, at 11:09, Lawrence M. Schoen <klingonguy@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:50 AM David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com> wrote:
Right you are! I had this filed in my brain as a discussion of how to determine what is "language using" and what is "not language using", but Okrand is also clearly indicating that the difference between {'oH} and {ghaH} is the abillity to communicate and not whether or not it is animate.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Okrand is actually indicating that the difference is a function of whether the speaker BELIEVES the other party can communicate.
Now, with that in mind, we can move the argument to whether "communicate" is the same as "uses language." Because based on the qurgh's statement, when I talk to my targ, we're communicating, and thus he merits {ghaH} and not {'oH}. No disrespect to my targ, but I'm not changing his pronoun based on this.
Indeed, the distinction between “communicate” and “use language”, if any, is an interesting one. Furthermore, does that mean that {bIH}/{chaH} is really about ability to communicate (not necessarily using language)? Can the speaker decide, based on his or her own judgement, whether to apply the language-capable possessive suffixes to a being that the speaker believes to be capable of (potentially non-linguistic) communication? QumlaHbej targhwI', 'a QumDI' Hol lo'be' ghaH.
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
So lemme get this straight. You guys think that *ghaH* is for any singular thing the speaker believes can communicate in some way, *'oH* is for any singular thing the speaker believes cannot communicate in any way, *chaH* is for plural beings capable of using language regardless of what you think about them, and *bIH* is for plural things not capable of using languages regardless of what you thinking about them. Except at night, on Tuesday, of course. You don't think that Okrand just got tired of saying "capable of using language" and shortened it to "communicate"? What are the odds of getting a Royal Fizbin, anyway?
On Sep 10, 2018, at 15:23, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
So lemme get this straight. You guys think that ghaH is for any singular thing the speaker believes can communicate in some way, 'oH is for any singular thing the speaker believes cannot communicate in any way, chaH is for plural beings capable of using language regardless of what you think about them, and bIH is for plural things not capable of using languages regardless of what you thinking about them. Except at night, on Tuesday, of course.
I don’t think that per se. I’m just asking if such a mess is possible. Trying to interpret the words we have been given so far, which haven’t used completely consistent language. My personal interpretation, at this time, is that 'oH/ghaH and bIH/chaH are divided along the same line, that the determination about which to use may be subject to the speaker’s personal point of view, and that the “capable of language” language we’re accustomed to might actually mean something slightly broader. I am open to accepting other interpretations and changing my mind down the road, but that’s how I currently see things.
You don't think that Okrand just got tired of saying "capable of using language" and shortened it to "communicate"?
He very well may have. Just like he called the chuvmey “latlh” in some presentation recently. I’m just leaving open the possibility that he does mean these as different things.
What are the odds of getting a Royal Fizbin, anyway?
I don’t know. All of the time based rules get more complicated when you have players spanning multiple time zones.
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 22:38, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
He very well may have. Just like he called the chuvmey “latlh” in some presentation recently. I’m just leaving open the possibility that he does mean these as different things.
That's not new. On TKD p.18, it states that "There are three basic parts of speech in Klingon: noun, verb, and everything else." {latlh} is just the Klingon translation of "everything else". It's not until p.51 that {chuvmey} is introduced to talk about non-noun non-verbs as a term Klingon grammarians use. They clearly refer to the same thing (one word is just more technical than the other). -- De'vID
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:23 PM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
*You don't think that Okrand just got tired of saying "capable of using language" and shortened it to "communicate"?*
What I think is that you cannot have it both ways when it comes to the whole "what Okrand says is canon" rule. It's a very slippery slope when you (or anyone) starts guessing what Marc meant. For the record, yeah, I think you're probably right, and that works right up until you start splitting hairs and ask about animals that most linguists would agree communicate but do not possess language. And let's be clear, what a card-carrying linguist means by a language is different from what a layperson which is also different from what an amateur, self-taught linguist might mean by the term. Which is where the emphasis on what the speaker believes comes back into play, because it finesses the whole question of what is actually a language and reduces it to *does the speaker believe language is in play*. See my earlier remark about kids and their imaginary friends' made up 'language'. It all still works. Damn, that Okrand, he's sneaky smart.
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 22:23, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
So lemme get this straight. You guys think that *ghaH* is for any singular thing the speaker believes can communicate in some way, *'oH* is for any singular thing the speaker believes cannot communicate in any way, *chaH* is for plural beings capable of using language regardless of what you think about them, and *bIH* is for plural things not capable of using languages regardless of what you thinking about them. Except at night, on Tuesday, of course.
Well, I don't. I think the {'oH}/{bIH} distinction is exactly the same as the {ghaH}/{chaH} one. I don't see how the table in TKD 5.1 can be interpreted in any other way. It's obviously arranged with the singular forms in one column and their corresponding plurals in the other. The absence of a comment is, I think, evidence, that the obvious interpretation is right, as it would be notable (danger! danger!) otherwise. It's also pretty clear that Okrand intended Klingon noun classes to be split along language-using-beings, body parts, and other things. The {-rup}/{-beH} distinction is an exception, and was invented to turn a line of dialogue originally spoken in English into Klingon. He's barely used or mentioned it since its invention. When a word (or a homophone) is used for both a body part and a non-body-part ({Ho'}, or {DeSqIv}), he's been careful to point out which plural suffix it uses. He's used {-pu'} on {latlh} when it refers to beings. What other people have been getting at is what happens if the speaker isn't sure whether the being uses language or not. The "rules" may say that this and that applies to language-using beings or not regardless of what you think about them. But the speaker necessarily has to judge whether the thing or being they're talking about uses language or not. In most cases (Humans, Vulcans, Romulans, Klingons on one side, tribbles, rocks, starships, on the other), it's clear. But what about {qaryoq'a'} or {vIlInHoD}? Maltz tells us that the usual plural is {-mey}, but some speakers prefer {-pu'}. He leaves unstated whether to use {'oH} or {ghaH}, but it seems obvious to me that those who use {-mey} would use {'oH}, and those who use {-pu'} would use {ghaH}. Okrand has given us rules. He's also pointed out that some people interpret the rules differently. That's how rules actually work in real life. Nothing surprising here. Now, I wonder, are there any instances in Star Trek where it's ambiguous whether something is a body part? For example, a creature with detachable autonomous limbs? Or what about a space amoeba? Are its internal organelles (or whatever distinguishable parts it has) body parts? What if they're made of identifiable things, like half-digested planets? Does the space amoeba have internal {yuQmey} or {yuQDu'}?
You don't think that Okrand just got tired of saying "capable of using language" and shortened it to "communicate"?
I think he's referring to slightly differently things, though. In TKD, when he talks about beings "capable of language", he's laying down the rules for what a grammar book would say. When he has subsequently explained that it's about whether the speaker believes something can communicate or not, he's talking about how people interpret the rules. Also, qurgh's observation from qep'a' 2015 is an example of what I mean when I say that {HolQeD} is a source of canon (when Okrand's words are relayed through other people):
(qurgh, 11/10/2015): I had a conversation with Marc about 'oH and ghaH and animals when I was at the qepHom. He said that if you (the speaker) believe you can communicate with a creature, then it's a ghaH, if you don't believe you can communicate with a creature, then it's 'oH. It's down the personal beliefs of the speaker, not a set formula.
I think that some people wouldn't consider this to be authoritative, since it's hearsay, like hearsay about things Okrand has said at performances of the Washington Shakespeare Company and whatnot. But if this same statement had appeared in HolQeD, it would (probably) be considered a canon interpretation of how to decide between using {'oH} and {ghaH} by most. -- De'vID
Am 10.09.2018 um 22:23 schrieb SuStel:
So lemme get this straight. You guys think that *ghaH* is for any singular thing the speaker believes can communicate in some way,
Although I think this is a very interesting discussion pointing at something that is not 100% clearly defined in TKD, I still think that it is quite clear depending on how you interpret things. For me, the {ghaH/'oH} pair is identical in use as the {chaH/bIH}: One is for capable of language, the other is for things. [First, a sidenote: I know we can never assume Klingon works like English, but here I'm talking about the English terms, not the Klingon's] It's true that Okrand did not explicetly say that in TKD, but the usage of the English words still makes it clear: Any English reader knows the difference between "s/he" and "it". But there is only one kind of "they" in English, and that's why there is the additional explanation in TKD. In addition of possible confusion, Conversational Klingon makes the distinction "referring to beings". You may argue that animals are beings as well, but that would contradict the rule of TKD that says capable of language. And I would not take Okrands message about what you BELIEVE too strict. This incorrect usage of pronouns is also based on the English usage (and this time I'm saying that, because all those languages who have genders for things do not have that problem). I read that message like "if you want to use ghaH with your dog, then do it." And qurgh mentioned creatures, not things. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Pronoun
Am 10.09.2018 um 17:44 schrieb Steven Boozer:
At qepHom 2015 qurgh asked Okrand about this:
(qurgh, 11/10/2015): I had a conversation with Marc about *'oH* and *ghaH* and animals when I was at the *qepHom*.
Just for the record: When Voragh quotes "qepHom YYYY" he usually means the "qepHom in Germany YYYY". But qurgh never was at that qepHom, so he probably means a diferent one. (or it was a different person?) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/QepHom
From: Lieven L. Litaer
Am 10.09.2018 um 17:44 schrieb Steven Boozer: (qurgh, 11/10/2015): I had a conversation with Marc about {'oH} and {ghaH} and animals when I was at the qepHom. He said that if you (the speaker) believe you can communicate with a creature, then it's a {ghaH}, if you don't believe you can communicate with a creature, then it's {'oH}. It's down the personal beliefs of the speaker, not a set formula.
Just for the record: When Voragh quotes "qepHom YYYY" he usually means the "qepHom in Germany YYYY". But qurgh never was at that qepHom, so he probably means a diferent one. (or it was a different person?)
When I wrote "(qurgh, 11/10/2015)" it meant that qurgh posted the following statement to this list on November 10, 2015. Whether qurgh's statement is true or not - i.e. which qepHom he was referring to - I have no way of knowing. If I mis-quote someone or confuse the source, I always appreciate corrections. I copy-and-paste all sorts into my notes, especially any comments by or conversations with Okrand. You never know when something might become relevant. Or not. Sometimes it's like interpreting the oracle at Delphi, or should I say the lava caves under the Boreth monastery? -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
From: Lieven L. Litaer
Am 10.09.2018 um 17:44 schrieb Steven Boozer: (qurgh, 11/10/2015): I had a conversation with Marc about {'oH} and {ghaH} and animals when I was at the qepHom. He said that if you (the speaker) believe you can communicate with a creature, then it's a {ghaH}, if you don't believe you can communicate with a creature, then it's {'oH}. It's down the personal beliefs of the speaker, not a set formula.
Just for the record: When Voragh quotes "qepHom YYYY" he usually means the "qepHom in Germany YYYY". But qurgh never was at that qepHom, so he probably means a diferent one. (or it was a different person?)
When I wrote "(qurgh, 11/10/2015)" it meant that qurgh posted the following statement to this list on November 10, 2015. Whether qurgh's statement is true or not - i.e. which qepHom he was referring to - I have no way of knowing. If I mis-quote someone or confuse the source, I always appreciate corrections.
I've had a few conversations with Marc about this kind of stuff over the years, at both the qep'a' and at various qepHommey we both happen to be at. I don't remember which one this specific conversation happened at, and I don't believe my statement should be taken as grammatical canon, but more a statement on how individuals use the language. It's my belief that the use of {-wI'} over {-wIj}, {ghaH} over {'oH}, etc says much more about the speaker's relationship with the object in question than it does about the object itself. I don't believe there is an objective list somewhere that says "X get's this suffix, Y get's this suffix". It's all subjective. There is no right or wrong, there is only the successful, or unsuccessful, transfer of ideas and concepts from one individual to the next. qurgh
On 9/11/2018 10:26 AM, qurgh lungqIj wrote:
It's my belief that the use of {-wI'} over {-wIj}, {ghaH} over {'oH}, etc says much more about the speaker's relationship with the object in question than it does about the object itself. I don't believe there is an objective list somewhere that says "X get's this suffix, Y get's this suffix". It's all subjective. There is no right or wrong, there is only the successful, or unsuccessful, transfer of ideas and concepts from one individual to the next.
I mostly agree. There are some times when a noun's gender is set by the external language rather than by the individual speaker's person opinion — *DeSqIvDu'* instead of *DeSqIvmey *for the handles of pots, for instance — but most of the time the rule is simply the usual /capable of using language/body parts/other./ It's just that the speaker has latitude to decide which category a noun belongs in. If you anthropomorphize your targ to the point of believing it speaks to you, or if you think parrots or computers actually understand what they're saying to you, you'll use *ghaH* instead of *'oH,* because you're just applying the usual rule according to your assessment of these nouns' statuses. You wouldn't normally vary your use of gender for a given noun, unless maybe as a rhetorical device or to speak in another's voice, or if your evaluation of two different entities using the same noun are different (e.g., robot Number Five versus the other Nova robots). Were she speaking Klingon, Dr. Pulaski would have started out calling Data *'oH* and switched to calling him *ghaH* as she came to realize her error. Most of the time a ballpoint pen would be an *'oH,* but Veet Voojagig would have referred to one as *ghaH.* Generally, there IS a right answer for most nouns, and listeners would look at you suspiciously if you used the wrong gender. But speakers are allowed to vary in the fuzzy areas where a reasonable argument could be made in favor of an unexpected gender. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (10)
-
Alan Anderson -
Daniel Dadap -
David Holt -
De'vID -
James Stephenson -
Lawrence M. Schoen -
Lieven L. Litaer -
qurgh lungqIj -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel