pseudo-Klingon words from the paq'batlh
What do people think about the following Klingon "words" from paq'batlh? They don't appear in the main (Klingon-language) text, but are used in otherwise English sentences in the introduction or footnotes. xxii. {Huy'reH} "aria style" xxii, 62, 87. {cha'ang} "chorus style" xvii, xxii, xxxv. {Qich'lut} "narrator style" xix. {paq'jachchu} "Book of the Perfect Scream" {Huy'reH} and {cha'ang}, at least, seem to follow proper modern {tlhIngan Hol} phonology. {Qich'lut} has a lower-cased "i" and an out-of-place {qaghwI'}. {paq'jachchu} has that apostrophe after {paq} and a missing {qaghwI'} at the end (if the {jachchu} part is indeed the verb {jachchu'}, as the English translation seems to indicate). On p.xxx, it is explicitly stated that the name {paq'batlh} is in {no' Hol} and that the apostrophe may be a clue to some missing grammatical element. Of course, the book also has sections named {paq'yav}, {paq'raD}, and {paq'QIH}. So {paq'jachchu} is probably just spelled weirdly for the same reason. Should {Huy'reH} and {cha'ang} be accepted as canon Klingon words as-is? In other words, would you expect them in a new words list? (In particular, I am asking if they should be listed in {boQwI'}.) The word {Qich'lut} is spelled that way all three times it appears in the book. I notice that in previous discussions on this mailing list, 'IQqu' and Voragh have both spelled it as {QIch lut} (capital-I, no apostrophe, space between the two words). Should {QIch lut} be accepted as the "modern" spelling for the purpose of look-up in word lists? -- De'vID
I think, that these words should be sent to 'oqranD, to clarify if he Ca'Nonizes them, or not. ~ jggkkg
On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 13:53, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I think, that these words should be sent to 'oqranD, to clarify if he Ca'Nonizes them, or not.
Maybe someone who is attending the {qep'a'} with a copy of the {paq'batlh} can ask him in person. -- De'vID
De'vID:
Maybe someone who is attending the {qep'a'} with a copy of the {paq'batlh} can ask him in person.
And while he's at it, if he could ask 'oqranD for a Ca'Non transliteration of *jesus christ*, he would do me a solid. It makes for a ridiculous translation of the new testament, having to constantly write *jesus*. ~ hjkhkjhj
On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 11:01, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
Maybe someone who is attending the {qep'a'} with a copy of the {paq'batlh} can ask him in person.
And while he's at it, if he could ask 'oqranD for a Ca'Non transliteration of *jesus christ*, he would do me a solid. It makes for a ridiculous translation of the new testament, having to constantly write *jesus*.
That seems like a thing which should be coordinated with the members of the Religious Text Translation Project, rather than ask Okrand about: https://www.kli.org/wiki/Religious_Text_Translation_Project -- De'vID
I don't know about Jesus, but "Christ" comes from some Greek for, er, greased. Well "anointed" is probably a better word in this context, but in the end, it means oil is applied to someone. I thought that would help, but I cannot find a word for oil, the closer is {tlhagh}, but it's "animal fat" not nice olive oil. So I find myself stuck as well. Maybe I will spend one of my points or two to ask for words for oil/grease and "to grease"/apply oil. In Italian the word for "ungere" is used both in culinary/mechanic context, and in the sense of "anoint". On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:59 AM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 11:01, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
Maybe someone who is attending the {qep'a'} with a copy of the {paq'batlh} can ask him in person.
And while he's at it, if he could ask 'oqranD for a Ca'Non transliteration of *jesus christ*, he would do me a solid. It makes for a ridiculous translation of the new testament, having to constantly write *jesus*.
That seems like a thing which should be coordinated with the members of the Religious Text Translation Project, rather than ask Okrand about: https://www.kli.org/wiki/Religious_Text_Translation_Project
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
-- Luciano Montanaro Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. -- Douglas Adams
Note that in English, we don’t refer to “Jesus, the anointed”. We transliterate names more often than translate them. So, why should we translate a name in Klingon instead of transliterating it? If he decides to give the name, it will probably be something like *jIySIS QaySet*. Sent from my iPad
On Jul 2, 2019, at 6:24 AM, Luciano Montanaro <mikelima@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't know about Jesus, but "Christ" comes from some Greek for, er, greased. Well "anointed" is probably a better word in this context, but in the end, it means oil is applied to someone.
I thought that would help, but I cannot find a word for oil, the closer is {tlhagh}, but it's "animal fat" not nice olive oil. So I find myself stuck as well.
Maybe I will spend one of my points or two to ask for words for oil/grease and "to grease"/apply oil. In Italian the word for "ungere" is used both in culinary/mechanic context, and in the sense of "anoint".
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:59 AM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 11:01, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
Maybe someone who is attending the {qep'a'} with a copy of the {paq'batlh} can ask him in person.
And while he's at it, if he could ask 'oqranD for a Ca'Non transliteration of *jesus christ*, he would do me a solid. It makes for a ridiculous translation of the new testament, having to constantly write *jesus*.
That seems like a thing which should be coordinated with the members of the Religious Text Translation Project, rather than ask Okrand about: https://www.kli.org/wiki/Religious_Text_Translation_Project
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
-- Luciano Montanaro
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. -- Douglas Adams _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Jul 2, 2019, at 05:53, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
So, why should we translate a name in Klingon instead of transliterating it? If he decides to give the name, it will probably be something like *jIySIS QaySet*.
When Okrand does transliterates proper nouns of non-English origin, he tends to transliterate from the source language rather than from English. Consider, for example, the country names of {maSIr}, {DoyIchlan}, {jungwoq}, {'eSpanya'}, {nIpon}, and {barat}, among others. I imagine “Jesus Christ” would end up as something closer to *{yeSu QIStoS} or *{yeSuwa QIStoS}, to more closely follow the Aramaic given name and the Greek epithet. That said, while I admire mayqel’s devotion to canon and reluctance to use transliterations for proper nouns that Okrand hasn’t devised himself, I do find it distracting to read a passage of Klingon text with untransliterated (well, technically transliterated into English) names of people and places liberally sprinkled throughout. It does seem that the RTTP has used their own transliterations for at least some proper names, including *{'IHrIStoS} for Christ.
We do have a word for anoint, sort of... {ngoH} "smear": (KGT 80-81): What the Federation would classify as a painting - that is, a {nagh beQ} featuring an image not carved into it but painted onto it - is made by applying {rItlh} [pigment, paint, dye] … The verb {ngoH}, meaning "smear" in other contexts, is used for "paint using fingers". According to my notes the KBTP (Klingon Bible Translation Project, the predecessor of the RTTP) has used *{ngoHlu'wI'} for Christ, i.e. "the anointed one". In addition to {tlhagh} we also have {ngIS} "a lubricant used on disruptor cannons" was used in Keith DeCandido's novel "Honor Bound" though I don't know if this one was approved by Okrand. (It certainly sounds like one of Okrand's puns: {ngIS} < "grease".) -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons -----------------------------------Original Message----------------------------------- From: Luciano Montanaro I don't know about Jesus, but "Christ" comes from some Greek for, er, greased. Well "anointed" is probably a better word in this context, but in the end, it means oil is applied to someone. I thought that would help, but I cannot find a word for oil, the closer is {tlhagh}, but it's "animal fat" not nice olive oil. So I find myself stuck as well. Maybe I will spend one of my points or two to ask for words for oil/grease and "to grease"/apply oil. In Italian the word for "ungere" is used both in culinary/mechanic context, and in the sense of "anoint".
ghItlhpu' De'vID, jatlhpu':
Maybe someone who is attending the {qep'a'} with a copy of the {paq'batlh} can ask him in person.
jangpu' mayqel, jatlh:
And while he's at it, if he could ask 'oqranD for a Ca'Non transliteration of *jesus christ*, he would do me a solid. It makes for a ridiculous translation of the new testament, having to constantly write *jesus*.
How many other personal names without known Klingon renditions are there in the New Testament? What about when someone goes onto the Old Testament? The Qur'an? More Shakespeare? For all the generous (and unpaid) work Okrand does with us to help develop his language, he's only a single human, and a retired one at that. If we get "canon transliterations" out of him for all the things people seem to want him to transliterate canonically, he'll have no time for anything else. To be blunt, I think there are far more important questions we could be asking. Honestly, just set yourself a transliteration standard based upon a robust set of principles - perhaps in association with the coordinator of the Religious Text Translation Project - and go with it. Whether you base it uniformly on the Greek renditions, or use renditions appropriate to ethnicity for each person, so long as you have a defensible basis for your choice and apply it consistently across the text then you should be fine. QeS 'utlh
Do'Ha', Suyajbe'ba'mo', wa' ngoD potlh vIQIjnISchu'.. Unfortunately you (plural *you*), have misunderstood me.. De'vID:
That seems like a thing which should be coordinated with the members of the Religious Text Translation Project, rather than ask Okrand about:
qaStaHvIS RTTP, jIjeSbe'. jIjeS, not jIjatlhpu'. jIjeS net jalchugh, vaj king james Sar vImugh. jIHvaD mughlI'ghachvam vItaghpu', 'ej mughlI'ghach vItaghpu'DI', jIHvaD jatlh naHqun lieven je: mughlI'ghachlIj ngaSlaH wI'qIy. vaj jIQochbe'pu'. 'ach RTTP jISaHbe'chu'. I don't participate in the RTTP, and I've never said, that I would participate there. If I wanted to participate there, I would translate the king james version. I've started this translation for myself, and as soon as I'd started it, naHqun and lieven suggested that I add this to the wiki, so I agreed. But I couldn't care less about the RTTP. QeS:
What about when someone goes onto the Old Testament? The Qur'an? More Shakespeare?
mu'mey neHbogh poQlaH Hoch vIlle'. DIbDaj. It's the right of every fan, to request the words which he wants. QeS:
To be blunt, I think there are far more important questions we could be asking.
vuDlIj 'oH 'e' vIvuv; 'ach pIm Hoch nuv vuD. It's your opinion and I respect that; however all opinions are subjective. QeS:
What about when someone goes onto the Old Testament? The Qur'an? More Shakespeare?
qaSchugh wanI'vam, vaj mu'mey neHbogh poQlaH vay'vam je. mapoQ ghorgh net bot ? If this happens, then this "someone" can request the words which he wants. When did someone prohibit that we ask ? And as long as transliterating goes, I will repeat once more.. I don't care if god almighty, all his angels, all his saints, and satan with all the demons of hell, speak in klingon. IF IT'S NOT FROM OKRAND I D-O N-O-T A-C-C-E-P-T I-T. yapbe' mu'meyvam ? latlh mu'mey vIjatlhnIS je ? pImbogh vay' vIjatlhnIS ? Isn't this enough ? What more do I have to say ? 'ej muSujqu' ghu'vam; muSujbej.. DIvI' Hol ngutlhmey vItamQo'mo', 'ej DaqchajDaq tlhIngan ngutlhmey vIlanQo'mo', jIQIj'eghnIS ? chutmey vIpabqang jIQIj'eghnIS ? and this is ridiculous; because I refuse to transliterate, I need to explain myself ? Because I'm willing to follow the rules, I need to explain myself ? jIHvaD, Holvam boghojmoHpu' tlhIH'e'; chaq tlhapragh bochenmoHpu', 'ach vabDot qaSchugh wanI'vam, vaj jIHvaD qay'be'. chutmey vIpab jIHvaD 'e' boghojmoHchu', vaj DaH paQDI'norghraj yIlaj. *You* (plural "you") have taught me this language, and *you* have taught me to follow the rules. Perhaps you created a monster. But it's the way *you* taught me, so deal with it. DaH ! tughojmoHpu' chaq 'e' bopay, 'ach Do'Ha' paSqu'.. Now, perhaps you regret having taught me to start with, but unfortunate it's too late.. 'ach, HIyajHa'Qo'.. SamuSHa'.. 'ach DIvI' Hol ngutlhmey vItamchoH, ghe''or vIjaHqangDI'. however, don't misunderstand me.. I love you all.. but I'll be damned if I ever start to transliterate. wejpuH.. Dapvammo' Hoch, mughmeH poHwIj vInatlhpu', vaj DaHjaj mughlI'ghachwIj vItaHmoHlaHbe'.. great.. because of this nonsense, I've spent all the time I've had to continue the translation.. ~ jhkjhkkjh
I get that you have a passionate interest in taking on the remarkable task of translating The King James version of the Bible, independent of the communal effort begun years ago. On one hand, you want to do this task single-handedly. You want to be the soul source of the translation. You not only don’t need anybody’s help. You don’t WANT anybody’s help… … except that there is a remarkable void of Klingon translations/transliterations of many dozens, if not hundreds of proper names, and the King James version is full of arcane language carefully crafted to support the political interests of King James and his heirs; to support the superiority of the male gender and of those who believe and obey the church, giving the king and the church the benefit of a sense of debt that all others must pay, lest one suffer eternal damnation, etc. I find it curious that you apparently expect Marc Okrand to be so interested in your project that he gives you the time and attention to create words he didn’t come up with for several other Bible translation projects that have existed in the past, within and separate from the KLI. Do you somehow believe that he has secretly wanted to provide every necessary name and other vocabulary for translating the Bible for many years now, but somehow he didn’t think that the other projects were good enough to justify the effort, but your project is so obviously superior that he will come forth and dedicate the time and effort to fulfill your fantasy? It’s not that I don’t understand you. It’s that I don’t understand why you believe your project is so important to everybody else that other people’s interest in developing the Klingon vocabulary should get in line behind you, so that you get to have your names and words before anyone else does, since you want so many names and words that either Okrand has to ramp up his production exponentially, or you’d have to wait longer than you want to wait to get your share of the bandwidth. THAT is the only thing that I don’t understand. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jul 2, 2019, at 9:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Do'Ha', Suyajbe'ba'mo', wa' ngoD potlh vIQIjnISchu'..
Unfortunately you (plural *you*), have misunderstood me..
De'vID:
That seems like a thing which should be coordinated with the members of the Religious Text Translation Project, rather than ask Okrand about:
qaStaHvIS RTTP, jIjeSbe'. jIjeS, not jIjatlhpu'. jIjeS net jalchugh, vaj king james Sar vImugh. jIHvaD mughlI'ghachvam vItaghpu', 'ej mughlI'ghach vItaghpu'DI', jIHvaD jatlh naHqun lieven je: mughlI'ghachlIj ngaSlaH wI'qIy. vaj jIQochbe'pu'. 'ach RTTP jISaHbe'chu'.
I don't participate in the RTTP, and I've never said, that I would participate there. If I wanted to participate there, I would translate the king james version. I've started this translation for myself, and as soon as I'd started it, naHqun and lieven suggested that I add this to the wiki, so I agreed. But I couldn't care less about the RTTP.
QeS:
What about when someone goes onto the Old Testament? The Qur'an? More Shakespeare?
mu'mey neHbogh poQlaH Hoch vIlle'. DIbDaj. It's the right of every fan, to request the words which he wants.
QeS:
To be blunt, I think there are far more important questions we could be asking.
vuDlIj 'oH 'e' vIvuv; 'ach pIm Hoch nuv vuD. It's your opinion and I respect that; however all opinions are subjective.
QeS:
What about when someone goes onto the Old Testament? The Qur'an? More Shakespeare?
qaSchugh wanI'vam, vaj mu'mey neHbogh poQlaH vay'vam je. mapoQ ghorgh net bot ?
If this happens, then this "someone" can request the words which he wants. When did someone prohibit that we ask ?
And as long as transliterating goes, I will repeat once more.. I don't care if god almighty, all his angels, all his saints, and satan with all the demons of hell, speak in klingon.
IF IT'S NOT FROM OKRAND I D-O N-O-T A-C-C-E-P-T I-T.
yapbe' mu'meyvam ? latlh mu'mey vIjatlhnIS je ? pImbogh vay' vIjatlhnIS ?
Isn't this enough ? What more do I have to say ?
'ej muSujqu' ghu'vam; muSujbej.. DIvI' Hol ngutlhmey vItamQo'mo', 'ej DaqchajDaq tlhIngan ngutlhmey vIlanQo'mo', jIQIj'eghnIS ? chutmey vIpabqang jIQIj'eghnIS ?
and this is ridiculous; because I refuse to transliterate, I need to explain myself ? Because I'm willing to follow the rules, I need to explain myself ?
jIHvaD, Holvam boghojmoHpu' tlhIH'e'; chaq tlhapragh bochenmoHpu', 'ach vabDot qaSchugh wanI'vam, vaj jIHvaD qay'be'. chutmey vIpab jIHvaD 'e' boghojmoHchu', vaj DaH paQDI'norghraj yIlaj.
*You* (plural "you") have taught me this language, and *you* have taught me to follow the rules. Perhaps you created a monster. But it's the way *you* taught me, so deal with it.
DaH ! tughojmoHpu' chaq 'e' bopay, 'ach Do'Ha' paSqu'..
Now, perhaps you regret having taught me to start with, but unfortunate it's too late..
'ach, HIyajHa'Qo'.. SamuSHa'.. 'ach DIvI' Hol ngutlhmey vItamchoH, ghe''or vIjaHqangDI'.
however, don't misunderstand me.. I love you all.. but I'll be damned if I ever start to transliterate.
wejpuH.. Dapvammo' Hoch, mughmeH poHwIj vInatlhpu', vaj DaHjaj mughlI'ghachwIj vItaHmoHlaHbe'..
great.. because of this nonsense, I've spent all the time I've had to continue the translation..
~ jhkjhkkjh _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Jul 2, 2019, at 09:07, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
It’s not that I don’t understand you. It’s that I don’t understand why you believe your project is so important to everybody else that other people’s interest in developing the Klingon vocabulary should get in line behind you, so that you get to have your names and words before anyone else does, since you want so many names and words that either Okrand has to ramp up his production exponentially, or you’d have to wait longer than you want to wait to get your share of the bandwidth.
What I believe mayqel’s position is (and I hope he corrects me if I’m wrong), is that he’s so vehemently against using Klingon words that don’t come from Okrand, and that he considers non-Klingon words which have been adapted to match Klingon phonology, that he’d rather leave those words untranslated/untransliterated if they’re not available. I don’t think he thinks that somehow his project deserves the official transliterations that other projects never got; I think he wants to hold his projects to a different standard than those that devise their own transliterations. I disagree with his position, but I hope I’m understanding and representing it correctly.
On 7/2/2019 9:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
*You* (plural "you") have taught me this language, and*you* have taught me to follow the rules. Perhaps you created a monster. But it's the way*you* taught me, so deal with it.
There's following the rules, and then there's understanding why the rules exist. The rule for this list is not to transliterate names without some sort of hint to the reader that that's what you've done. This rule exists because this list has an educational aspect to it, and someone learning the language and coming across a phrase like *yeSu QIStoS* might uselessly search through lists of vocabulary trying to find what this means. And the only reason we need the rule is because you can't capitalize Klingon to show what is a proper noun. The rule is /not/ that you can't transliterate names into Klingon. You clearly can. Understand what a transliteration is. It's not a vocabulary word. It's a foreign word that someone has changed to make it fit better with the sounds or writing system of the target language. Okrand does this all the time. **qIrq** is not a Klingon word or name, whether I show it in Klingon pronunciation like that. But when a Klingon pronounces it, it's going to sound like *qIrq.* Remember, the writing system we use is how Klingons /pronounce/ words, not how they write them. Imagine someone were translating a story from Chinese to English. They translate all the words and write them in Latin characters, but they keep Chinese characters for all the names. Who does that? If you didn't read Chinese, you couldn't even guess at how the names sounded. So feel free to transliterate names in your own translations. Or don't. Names foreign to your language are often difficult to pronounce, even if you use the same script. Welsh names are famously difficult for English speakers to pronounce, but that doesn't mean that every Welsh name is transliterated into English when you're translating from Welsh to English. But if you choose not to transliterate, don't over-punctuate the names. They're obviously foreign; there's no need to mark them. *tagha' mob Húrin. yoDDaj woH 'ej 'obmaQ Qach; cha' ghop lo'. bomlu' 'ej jatlhlu' Gothmog /troll/ 'avwI'pu' 'Iw qIjDaq tlhIch ghIt 'obmaQ. raghpu'pa' 'oH, HoHDI' Húrin, reH jach; jatlh «/Aurë entuluva!/ cheghbej jaj!» SochmaHlogh mu'tlheghvetlh jach. tagha' ghaH jonlu'. yIjon 'ach yIHoHQo' jatlhpu' Morgoth. Húrin lu'uchmeH ghopDu'chaj lo' Orcpu'. DeSchaj pe' ghaH 'ej chev, vabDot lu'uchtaH ghopmeyvetlh. reH vI' Orcpu'. tagha' Dojmey bIngDaq pum ghaH.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
charghwI', law'qu' Doch DayajlaHbe'bogh.. many are the things which you don't understand.. wa'DIch: wa' mu' neH vIpoQpu' first: I've asked for just one word charghwI':
I find it curious that you apparently expect Marc Okrand to be so interested in your project that he gives you the time and attention to create words he didn’t come up with for several other Bible translation projects that have existed in the past It’s that I don’t understand why you believe your project is so important to everybody else that other people’s interest in developing the Klingon vocabulary should get in line behind you, so that you get to have your names and words before anyone else does
mu'mey law' DapoQ, jIHvaD bIjatlh. nuqDaq mu'meyvam law' vIpoQpu' ? jIHvaD Daqvam pup yIcha' pagh pumlIj yIngup. wIv cha'DIch qaq. You say that I request *words* (plural). Where have I asked for "many" words ? Show me where. Show me the exact location, or you'd better swallow your accusation. jIloS.. I'm waiting.. 'ej jIjatlhqa'; mu'mey poQ Hoch vIlle'; DIbDaj. and I will say again; its the right of every fan to request whatever he wants. cha'DIch: charghwI':
You not only don’t need anybody’s help. You don’t WANT anybody’s help…
bISagh'a' ? pab vIyajmeH 'arlogh jIghelta' ? are you serious ? how many times have I asked as far as grammar is concerned ? wejDIch:
and the King James version is full of arcane language carefully crafted to support the political interests of King James and his heirs; to support the superiority of the male gender and of those who believe and obey the church, giving the king and the church the benefit of a sense of debt that all others must pay, lest one suffer eternal damnation, etc.
vItchugh ngoDvam, vaj king james Sar vIvup. *orthodox* paq vImugh, orthodox liturgical ghItlh 'oHmo' paqvam'e'. DaH, chaq, SoHvaD, orthodox christianity vIt heretic christianity Sarmey vIQIjlaH.. 'ach jIHvaD Dajbe' ngoQvam. if this is true, then I pity the king james version. I'm translating the orthodox new testament, because it is an orthodox liturgical text. Now, perhaps, I could explain to you the difference between orthodoxy and heretical varieties of christianity, but I just don't care.. charghwI':
to fulfill your fantasy?
'o charghwI', charghwI'.. taghwI' jIHtaHvIS, roD jaSHa' mutIchta'.. 'ej mutIchqa'ta'.. 'ach, DaH pImchu' ghu'.. *fantasy*qoqvam vIturchu'. 'ej wa' jaj, mab'a' chu' Hoch vImughta'.. Sun vIghajmo', qapmeH laH vIghajmo', tlhIngan Hol vIlo'laHmo', ngoQwIj vIchav.. vaj, chopIlmoHqu'pu'mo' qatlho'.. chomevlaHbe', 'ej meq DaSov'a' ? SoHvaD vIDel DaneH'a' ? naDev, tlhIngan Hol wIlo'taHvIS, Hoch luboplaH mu'meymaj.. Hoch'e'. While I was a beginner, you had a habit of insulting me similarly, again and again.. but now things are different.. I *will* fulfill this "fantasy", and I *will* translate the entire new testament.. Because I have the discipline, the persistence, and because I can use the language. So, thank you for motivating me further.. You can't stop this, and you know why ? Because, here, while we're writing in klingon we can write about anything. 'ej jIloStaH.. nuqDaq mughlI'ghachvamvaD mu'mey law' vIpoQpu' ? chopumpu', vaj mu'meylIj yItob. and I'm still waiting.. where have I asked for this translation "many" words ? since you wrote that I did, prove it. ..'ej bIjangchugh, tlhIngan Hol yIlo' je; tlhIngan Hol lubopbe'chugh vay' mu'mey, vaj tlhIngan Hol lo'nISlu'. naDev chutmey tu'lu' 'e' yISov. .. and if you reply, use klingon. if someone's words don't concern the language, then he needs to use klingon. there *are* rules here, you know. ~ hjkhjkhjk
this: DaH, chaq, SoHvaD, orthodox christianity vIt heretic christianity Sarmey vIQIjlaH should be: DaH, chaq, SoHvaD, orthodox christianity vIt heretic christianity Sarmey je vIQIjlaH this: taghwI' jIHtaHvIS, roD jaSHa' mutIchta'.. 'ej mutIchqa'ta'. should be: taghwI' jIHtaHvIS, roD jaSHa' chotIchta'.. 'ej chotIchqa'ta'. and this: tlhIngan Hol lubopbe'chugh vay' mu'mey, vaj tlhIngan Hol lo'nISlu' should be: tlhIngan Hol lubopbe'chugh vay' mu'mey, vaj tlhIngan Hol lo'nIS vay' maj.. ~ khhkhk
On Jul 2, 2019, at 11:20 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
wa'DIch: wa' mu' neH vIpoQpu' first: I've asked for just one word
bIQ ngaS HIvje'lIj. mu' mughlu'bogh DapoQpu'be'. pong'e' qollu'bogh DaneH. roD pongmey lumughlu'be', 'e' Dalaj'a'? ...pagh... mughnIS 'e' vay' 'e' Daqapchugh, vaj cha''e' DapoQtaH. You’re asking for a Klingon spelling/pronunciation of a name. As a person familiar with the source language, you should be able to come up with one yourself. Many of us understand the TalkNow transliterations as implicit permission to do that. But if you absolutely insist on using only Okrand’s word for everything, he did talk about Christmas as {QISmaS}. Just run with that. FYI, the consensus spelling is {QIStoS}. -- ghunchu'wI'
On 7/2/2019 12:53 PM, Alan Anderson wrote:
FYI, the consensus spelling is {QIStoS}.
Consensus? -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
ghunchu'wI':
FYI, the consensus spelling is {QIStoS}. SuStel: Consensus?
ghel SuStel, 'ej lugh.. Indeed SuStel is right.. Qochbe'pu' 'Iv ? Consensus by who ? 'ej DIvI' Hol ngutlhmey lutamlu' 'e' wIrIchmo', jIjatlhnIS.. And because we speak of transliterating.. mark paq ngaS wI'qIy, 'ej ngutlhmey lutamlu'ta'bogh ngaS. Do'Ha', HochHom mu'meyvam vIyajlaHbe'. The wiki has the Gospel of Mark, which *has* transliterations. And unfortunately I can't understand most of the transliterated words. ~ gkgkh
ghunchu'wI':
mu' mughlu'bogh DapoQpu'be'. pong'e' qollu'bogh DaneH. roD pongmey lumughlu'be', 'e' Dalaj'a'? ...pagh... mughnIS 'e' vay' 'e' Daqapchugh, vaj cha''e' DapoQtaH.
cha'balwIj DaDelHa'chu'. You are twisting my intent. wa' pong vImughmeH, wa' mughchu'ghach vIpoQpu'. I requested one word to describe one name. 'ach Daj.. but this is interesting.. wa' Hol chenmoHlu'ta'bogh tu'lu'. Holvam ghoj wa' vIlle'.. wa' mu' poQ, 'ej luHIv 'op nuv.. Holvam vIghojmo', jItlhIjnIS je ? yIjatlh 'e' yImev, yIpoQQo'; mu'meyvam vIQoynIStaH'a' ? there is a constructed language, a fan learns it, and because he requests for a word, he's being attacked.. Do I need to apologise too for learning this language ? Or do I need to be hearing "shut up, don't ask" ? 'ach QuchchoHchugh 'op nuv, vaj qay'be'. jaSHa' taHjaj. but if it makes some people happy, then no problem. bring it on. ~ hkhkhk
Am 02.07.2019 um 19:49 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
nIqolay Q:
yeSwa' bar yoSev or na'Saretlhngan 'I'eySoS is
mu'meyvam vIyajlaHbe'chu'. chaq loQ, {na'Saretlhngan} neH vIyajlaH.
That's a good example for why not to do it. A German Klingonist would have made that {natSa'ret}. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Transcription
On 7/2/2019 1:49 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
nIqolay Q:
yeSwa' bar yoSev or na'Saretlhngan 'I'eySoS is
mu'meyvam vIyajlaHbe'chu'. chaq loQ, {na'Saretlhngan} neH vIyajlaH.
What you're saying here is that you can't resolve those names from their ciphers. But names aren't ciphers. If you're reading a text in Klingon, you don't need to be able to recognize the original form of the name, you just need to accept that it's a name. The entire thing should be readable in Klingon, without any reference whatsoever to the original. *puqwI' DaqIHpu''a'? Hu'per Ha'mperDIng 'oH pongDaj'e'.* You can figure out which word in those sentences is a name, and you don't need to recognize the original form of the name to understand that it /is/ a name. I could write a whole novel about *Hu'per Ha'mperDIng* and you wouldn't be confused at all, regardless of whether you recognize the original form of the name or whether it follows Klingon orthography. Again, in ordinary text on this list, you should mark such names in some way to keep the rare newbie from trying to translate it as a word ("/Days-ago label let's-go m-label spin?/ Huh?"). But newbies really have no business trying to read a biblical translation before they can distinguish proper nouns from common nouns. For your own texts, choose a method that combines functionality with aesthetic value. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
ghItlhpu' mayqel, jatlh:
mu'mey neHbogh poQlaH Hoch vIlle'. DIbDaj. It's the right of every fan, to request the words which he wants.
Before I respond, poQ means "demand" in the sense of "require, necessitate" (and I hope that's not genuinely reflective of the attitude you take towards requests to Marc). You need tlhob here, which is "ask (for), request". 'ach tlhoblaHchugh vay', ngoy'nISqu' je. jIjatlhqa'qu': wa' loD neH ghaH 'oqranD'e'. SochmaH ben boghpu'. Qu'Daj DeqvaD 'utlh mojpu' 'ej DaH leSpoHDaj tIvlaH, vaj loQ vumbe'choH 'e' bajchu'. DIbmeyDaj tlhIn'e' Davuvbej'a' je? toy'wI''a'ma' ghaHbe'chu'. qaStaHvIS cha'maH vagh DIS'e' nuQaHtaH, wIvuvtaHmo', wIbojbe'mo', mayep'eghmoHmo', mawoghbe''eghmoHmo'. ghaHvaD pu'jIn paq wInoblaH 'ej majatlhlaH «DaH tera' Hoch vengmey tIpongchu' 'ej tlhIngan Hol yIlo'». DuH. 'ach wIta'chugh, qaS nuq? qaStaHvIS cha'maH vagh tup'e' nucherghtaH 'e' DaHarbej'a'? (Tangentially, I note that you used jaSHa' in your response to ghunchu'wI'. I was the one who openly asked Marc about the possibility of jaSHa' and the productivity of a couple of other -Ha'-adverbs at qep'a' 2012. Do you think my time would have been better spent asking him to transliterate "Samuel Taylor Coleridge" for me for the Rime of the Ancient Mariner, a project that was more personally pressing for me?) jIjatlhpu' jIH:
What about when someone goes onto the Old Testament? The Qur'an? More Shakespeare?
jangtaH mayqel:
qaSchugh wanI'vam, vaj mu'mey neHbogh poQlaH vay'vam je.
quSDaq bIba'. jaS qaghel: pong DaneHbogh SoH potlh law' latlh pongmey potlh puS 'e' DaHar'a', tlhobwI' wa'DIch SoHmo' neH? taH:
mapoQ ghorgh net bot ?
'ej tlhoblu' net botbe'ba'. 'ach 'oqranD wItlhobchugh, motlh (matlh jupna' DImojbe'chugh - vabDot rut matlh jupna' DImojqu'chugh je) maHvaD neH wItlhobbe'. tlhIngan Hol jatlhwI' nugh naQvaD wItlhob. wa' Dol nIvDaq matay'DI' maQap. meqvetlhmo' KLI chabal tetlhDaq vuDmey law' luboSlu', 'oqranDvaD nobmeH chabal'a'na''e' luwuqlu'pa'. (...'ej qechvetlh vIqeltaHvIS, latlh vay' mutlhojmoH: pongvam DaneHqu'chugh, qatlh poStaHqu'bogh KLI chabal tetlhDaq Dachelbe'ta'qu'?) taH:
And as long as transliterating goes, I will repeat once more.. I don't care if god almighty, all his angels, all his saints, and satan with all the demons of hell, speak in klingon. IF IT'S NOT FROM OKRAND I D-O N-O-T A-C-C-E-P-T I-T.
'ej Heghpu'DI' 'oqranD, Dor tlhIngan Hol DaneH'a'? qechlIj Dalobchu'qu'taHqu'chugh, qaSbej wanI'vetlh. pongmey'e' wej lughqu'moHpu'bogh 'oqranD lulajlu'Qo' qaStaHvIS 'u' yIn. 'e' Damaqchu' DaneHlaw'. vuSqu' vuDvetlh SIbI'Ha' 'e' Datlhoj 'e' vItul. 'ej latlh vay''e' - QInwIj vorghDaq vay''e' vIjatlhpu'qu'bogh - SIbI'Ha' DatlhojchoH je: Bible Damughchu'taHvIS "Jesus Christ" 'oHbe'qu' pong mob'e'. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Mary, James, Judas, Philip, Pontius Pilate, Barnabas, Zebedee, Simon, Saul, David, Joseph, Thomas, Bartholomew, Caiaphas, Ananias, Zechariah, Zacchaeus, Anna, Sapphira, Agabus, Apollos, Martha, Barabbas, Nicodemus, Lazarus, Herod, Stephen, Silas, Timothy, Titus, Felix, Drusilla, Canaan, Jordan, Israel, Jerusalem, Nazareth, Bethlehem, Damascus, Tyre, Jericho, Gaza, Golgotha, Caesarea, Philadelphia, Troas, Tarsus, Joppa, Capernaum, Antioch, Bethsaida, Arimathea, Bethany, Patmos, Pergamos, Galilee, Dalmanutha, Magdala, Antalya, Sardis, Corinth, Athens, latlh law' je Dalo'nIS 'ej tugh Dalo'nISchoHbejqu'. SoHvaD Hoch bIH lughqu'moH je 'oqranD DaneH'a'? bIHvaD nab DachernISbejtaHqu' je, Jesus pong ghItlhmeH tlhIngan Hol ngutlhmey lo'chugh 'oqranD pagh lo'be'chugh. taH:
'ej muSujqu' ghu'vam; muSujbej.. DIvI' Hol ngutlhmey vItamQo'mo', 'ej DaqchajDaq tlhIngan ngutlhmey vIlanQo'mo', jIQIj'eghnIS ?
SoHvaD neH bImughchugh mIw Dalo'bogh vISaHbe'qu'. Hoch DaneHbogh yIchav. jISaHbe'qu' 'e' vIlay'. 'ach latlhvaD bImughchugh, HIja', SIbI'Ha' mIwlIj DaHubnISlaH. taH:
chutmey vIpabqang jIQIj'eghnIS ?
There are no rules or laws on how to render foreign names into Klingon. Nothing of the sort exists anywhere in canon and you're not ever going to hear me say otherwise. What we've developed here on the list is just a series of conventions to avoid causing unnecessary confusion and we generally suggest that traffic on the list follows that convention. When you're translating, though, you are free to follow any convention you choose, so long as you do it consistently and coherently. By the way, I wasn't seeking to attack you in my email at all. I only sought to point out that from a "canon name" point of view you have bigger issues than just the name of Jesus, and that I, for my part, believe that the quite limited time we can spend asking Marc to develop Klingon is spent in more productive areas than him transliterating mere proper names that aren't Klingon words, aren't known to be culturally relevant to Klingon, and are very often transliterations to begin with (to take the Bible as an example, any form of the name "Matthew" not written in Hebrew or Aramaic script is already a transliteration anyway, so it's essentially a moot point as to whether the Klingon goes with mattISya''u from the Tiberian Hebrew or mattItlhya'Hu from the hypothesised Biblical Hebrew or mattlha'yoS from the Greek or ma'tlhIw from the English so long as you keep it consistent), and that you should feel at liberty to go with a transliteration-based approach if you wish to because it would help avoid having, as you openly complained about, to write "*Jesus*" all the time. I brought the thought up also with the wishlist in my mind, since several names for Terran cities and states and countries have been requested and I believe that those are equally not very useful (since we can already see from TNK what the general pattern is for such things). As such, my email was a suggestion, and not only in the context of you in particular. But you've definitely lost some of my goodwill in the aggressively-defensive and, to be frank, somewhat nasty attitude in your responses to me and others here. I don't appreciate being spoken to in that way. QeS 'utlh
On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 17:20, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm translating the orthodox new testament, because it is an orthodox liturgical text. Now, perhaps, I could explain to you the difference between orthodoxy and heretical varieties of christianity, but I just don't care..
(Isn't that one of those religions based on that guy from the People's Front of Judea? Anyway...) naDev wa' {Harchu'wI' lalDan} neH tu'lu': qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay' lalDan. (ghaHvaD {qeylIS lIjlaHbogh pagh} lupong HarHa'wI'. 'Ighjaj HarHa'wI'!) There's only one "orthodox religion" here: that of Kahless the Unforgettable. (Curse the heretics who call him by a slightly different variant of his name!) -- De'vID
That brings up the point that proper names don’t usually show up in dictionaries. In Klingon, there are exceptions for names of people in the Star Trek Universe, primarily to help us with spelling. We don’t have Klingon spelling for Trump, Obama, Han Solo, or Harry Potter. We don’t have Klingon spellings for Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius, the Tao, or Jesus. If a word not in the dictionary shows up in a spot in a Klingon sentence where it makes sense for a name to go, then we deal with it in Klingon much like we deal with it in English. We spell it the best we can, and if it’s a new name for the reader, we introduce it with whatever spelling we have for it. I had a Vietnamese friend named Kungwai. I’m sure that’s not how it is spelled in Vietnamese, since I’m pretty sure that the language doesn’t use Roman characters, and likely there are multiple spellings of it in English by different people with the same name. He initially introduced himself as Johnny because he assumed we would not be comfortable trying to say his real name. wIl martIn ‘oH tera’ngan pongwIj’e’, ‘ach thIngan vIjatlhDI’ ru’ charghwI’ vImaS. If you are concerned that people will be confused because you are using names in Klingon the way people use them in any other language, and you want to prevent confusion by those who will try to look up the names in the dictionary, you can be polite and mark the names with asterisks, not that anyone would expect you to do that in any “real” language... Sent from my iPad
On Jul 3, 2019, at 4:39 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
There's only one "orthodox religion" here: that of Kahless the Unforgettable. (Curse the heretics who call him by a slightly different variant of his name!)
hahaha ! bIlugh !
~ hkkhkh _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 12:56, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
We don’t have Klingon spellings for [...] the Tao [...]
{taw} 'oHbe''a'? ;-)
I had a Vietnamese friend named Kungwai. I’m sure that’s not how it is spelled in Vietnamese, since I’m pretty sure that the language doesn’t use Roman characters,
bIlughbe'. *latIn* ngutlhmey lo'bej Holvam: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_language "The Vietnamese alphabet (chữ quốc ngữ) in use today is a Latin alphabet with additional diacritics for tones and certain letters." -- De'vID
On Jul 3, 2019, at 05:56, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
I’m sure that’s not how it is spelled in Vietnamese, since I’m pretty sure that the language doesn’t use Roman characters,
roma' ngutlhmey lo‘ ej vI'etnam Hol ghItlhmeH Ho'DoS 'a wab choHmeH ngutlhHommey law' lo' je, yapbe'mo' ngutlhmeyna' neH. ghantoH: “Việt Nam” 'oH Sep pong'e'.
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 6:56 AM Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
If you are concerned that people will be confused because you are using names in Klingon the way people use them in any other language, and you want to prevent confusion by those who will try to look up the names in the dictionary, you can be polite and mark the names with asterisks, not that anyone would expect you to do that in any “real” language...
"Real" languages often have other means of indicating proper names or transliterations of foreign concepts, so it's not unheard of. English uses capital letters for proper names (Gowron, Jesus) and often uses italics for transliterated things and concepts (*Weltschmerz, glasnost, forshak*). In the case of Klingon, there are so many beginners relative to the number of fluent speakers that it's still not a bad idea to help them out a little. For marking "unofficial" transliterations, my preference is towards *italics*, *underlining*, or _underscores_, depending on what your text editor can get away with. *mu'tlheghmeyvaD moHqu' DujtlhuQHom ngutlh 'e' vIQub!*
On 7/3/2019 10:39 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
For marking "unofficial" transliterations, my preference is towards /italics/, _underlining_, or _underscores_, depending on what your text editor can get away with. *mu'tlheghmeyvaD moHqu' DujtlhuQHom ngutlh 'e' vIQub!*
jIQochbe': moHbej. toH, chaq qaq wa' nungbogh yamtaw: tagha' mob _Hu'rIn. yoDDaj woH 'ej 'obmaQ Qach; cha' ghop lo'. bomlu' 'ej jatlhlu' _ghatlhmagh /troll/ 'avwI'pu' 'Iw qIjDaq tlhIch ghIt 'obmaQ. raghpu'pa' 'oH, HoHDI' _Hu'rIn, reH jach; jatlh «/Aurë entuluva!/ cheghbej jaj!» SochmaHlogh mu'tlheghvetlh jach. tagha' ghaH jonlu'. yIjon 'ach yIHoHQo' jatlhpu' _morghatlh. _Hu'rIn lu'uchmeH ghopDu'chaj lo' /orcs./ DeSchaj pe' ghaH 'ej chev, vabDot lu'uchtaH ghopmeyvetlh. reH vI' /orcs./ tagha' Dojmey bIngDaq pum ghaH. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
qechlIj vIparHa’qu’. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jul 3, 2019, at 11:04 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/3/2019 10:39 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
For marking "unofficial" transliterations, my preference is towards italics, underlining, or _underscores_, depending on what your text editor can get away with. mu'tlheghmeyvaD moHqu' DujtlhuQHom ngutlh 'e' vIQub! jIQochbe': moHbej.
toH, chaq qaq wa' nungbogh yamtaw:
tagha' mob _Hu'rIn. yoDDaj woH 'ej 'obmaQ Qach; cha' ghop lo'. bomlu' 'ej jatlhlu' _ghatlhmagh troll 'avwI'pu' 'Iw qIjDaq tlhIch ghIt 'obmaQ. raghpu'pa' 'oH, HoHDI' _Hu'rIn, reH jach; jatlh «Aurë entuluva! cheghbej jaj!» SochmaHlogh mu'tlheghvetlh jach. tagha' ghaH jonlu'. yIjon 'ach yIHoHQo' jatlhpu' _morghatlh. _Hu'rIn lu'uchmeH ghopDu'chaj lo' orcs. DeSchaj pe' ghaH 'ej chev, vabDot lu'uchtaH ghopmeyvetlh. reH vI' orcs. tagha' Dojmey bIngDaq pum ghaH.
-- 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
On 7/4/2019 7:11 AM, Rhona Fenwick wrote:
ghItlhpu' SuStel, jatlh:
_Hu'rIn lu'uchmeH ghopDu'chaj lo' /orcs./
jIHvaD loQ jum; qatlh DIvI' Hol pab pol /orcs/? qatlh /orc/pu' Dajun? (...'ach /yrch/ Dalo'nISbe'ba' :) )
ghot pong 'oHmo' _Hu'rIn'e' 'ach Segh 'oHmo' /orc/'e'. At some point you have to decide what exactly a proper noun is. The word /human/ is, for example, a common noun, but the word /Klingon/ is a proper noun. Sometimes people writing about Star Trek try to correct this by capitalizing /Human/ as well. Tolkien's capitalization for elves, orcs, dwarves, and so on changes depending on which book you're looking at. He never capitalizes /troll,/ however. His choice to treat some "species" as proper nouns in some books is a personal convention, and it need not be followed at all times. There's an old role-playing game called /Star Frontiers/ in which the various intelligent race-names are all capitalized, and so they capitalize /Human/ as well. I always take it the other way, figuring that if /human/ is a common noun to humans, then /yazirian/ is a common noun to yazirians, /dralasite/ is a common noun to dralasites, and /vrusk/ is a common noun to /vrusk./ I adopt a narrower definition of what constitutes a proper noun. So I made a choice: /orc/ is a common noun, not a proper noun, just as I'll treat *tlhIngan, romuluSngan,* and *tera'ngan* as common nouns. It's just a personal convention. Given that we're talking about personal conventions to mark proper nouns, I figure I'm entitled. :) -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Jul 4, 2019, at 07:04, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 7/4/2019 7:11 AM, Rhona Fenwick wrote: ghItlhpu' SuStel, jatlh:
_Hu'rIn lu'uchmeH ghopDu'chaj lo' orcs.
jIHvaD loQ jum; qatlh DIvI' Hol pab pol orcs? qatlh orcpu' Dajun? (...'ach yrch Dalo'nISbe'ba' :) ) ghot pong 'oHmo' _Hu'rIn'e' 'ach Segh 'oHmo' orc'e'.
wejHa' ngoDvam boSovchu' 'e' vIpIHba', 'a le' Tolkien mughmeH Qu', 'op pongmey tlhIn mughbe'lu' 'e' chupmo' Tolkien. chay' Qap Ho'DoSvam roma' ngutlhmey lo'be'DI' Hol'e' buSbogh mughwI'? Tolkien mughlu'bogh vIlaDpu'be'. vabDot Tolkien vIlaDpu'bogh vIqawbe'qu'.
Rhona, maSol vIneHbe'; jIDoy'qu'. meqvammo', Hoch QInlIj 'ay'mey vIpojbe'. vIpoj net jalchugh, vaj qaSqa' ghe''or 'e' Sov qeylIS. 'ej ghu'vam vIneHbe'. I don't want to argue; I'm tired. So, I won't reply for eveything you wrote. Because if I did, then (again) hell would break loose. 'ach, wa' Doch DaghItlhpu'bogh vIpojnIS: but I need to reply for something you wrote: Rhona:
Before I respond, poQ means "demand" in the sense of "require, necessitate" (and I hope that's not genuinely reflective of the attitude you take towards requests to Marc). You need tlhob here, which is "ask (for), request"
teH; {poQ} vIghItlh 'e' vIHechbe'. {tlhob} vIghItlh 'e' vIHech. pa'logh, jIghItlhpu': not 'oqranD vIghompu', 'ach law'bogh mu'mey vItlhobpu'bogh peSta'. meqvammo', tlho'na'wIj ghaj 'oqranD, 'ej vIvuvqu'. 'ej 'oqranD vIvuvqu'mo', HolDaj vIghoj. True. I didn't intend to write {poQ}; {tlhob} was my intention. In the past, I've written, that although I've never met Okrand in person, he's granted many words I've requested, and for that, he has my sincere gratitude. Of course I respect Okrand, and because I respect him, I'm learning his language. DaH, jIQIj'eghchu'pu' ? Now, am I clear ? naDev, Do'Ha'bej qaStaHbogh ghu'.. maghomchuq net jalchugh, vaj ghaytan juppu' DImoj, 'ej wa'vaD SaHtaHvIS latlh, QuchchoH Hoch. 'ach, motlh, maghItlhtaHvIS, qaS wanI' taQ.. maHIvchuqqangtaH. naDev maghItlhtaHvIS, nu'el devil ? jIyajlaHbe', 'ej mu'meyvam jIghItlhtaHvIS jI'Il. What is taking place here, is a really unfortunate.. If we were to meet each other in person, it's almost certain, everyone would become friends, and enjoy each other's company. But while we're writing, the creepy reality which actually manifests, is being ready to tear each other apart, as if suddenly we're being possessed by the devil. Why ? In all honesty, I can't understand this. Hol rap wImuSHa', 'ej boqwI'pu' maHlaw' jay'.. We're supposed to be on the same fracking side.. ~ hjhjkkjh
ghItlhpu' mayqel, jatlh:
the orthodox new testament, because it is an orthodox liturgical text. Now, perhaps, I could explain to you the difference between orthodoxy and heretical varieties of christianity, but I just don't care..
wa' nuvvaD motlhchugh vay', chaq latlh nuvvaD wogh 'oH. "Heretical" in English is a very loaded term. jatlh
(Isn't that one of those religions based on that guy from the People's Front of Judea? Anyway...)
chevwI'! QeS 'utlh
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:35 AM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
IF IT'S NOT FROM OKRAND I D-O N-O-T A-C-C-E-P-T I-T.
Why not? Klingonists invent new words all the time. I'm pretty sure the word *turuqqangqa'moHtaHneS'a'* "Are you all still willing to burp me again, your honors?" has never once been written by any Klingonist before, Okrand or otherwise. But nobody minds, because it follows the rules that were laid out in TKD for forming new words. Start with a root word, add some prefixes and suffixes, now you have a new longer word. Someone else might prefer to render that phrase in another way (such as not at all), but their attempt will also be based on the rules set down in TKD. We do this so often we don't even usually think of it as creating a new word. In the case of transliterations, we don't have formal rules. But we have plenty of examples to learn how Okrand does it: which sounds are transliterated to which Klingon sounds, how to handle consonant clusters, to start with the native word for countries and places rather than the English, and so on. There are still a few questions about his style of transliteration, but we have questions for the application of suffixes too, and we still use those. It's possible someone might not know what you're getting at, but we have that issue with unusual combinations of suffixes. Our understanding of transliteration isn't quite as precise as it is for affixation, but I think it's just a difference in quantity, not quality. Making a good-faith effort to adhere to Okrand's style when transliteration seems to me like any other form of using canon principles to write something new. As for consensus, *potlhbe'*. Most of the phrases in your translation aren't going to be the exact same as they would be if someone else translated it. And the transliterations don't need to be the same someone else would use. Just be consistent with yourself. The Gospel of Mark is supposed to be a mostly self-contained thing, after all. Transliterating Jesus's name as *QIStoS* or *yeSwa' bar yoSev* or *na'Saretlhngan 'I'eySoS* is presumably less important than explaining to the reader why he's worth writing about in the first place.
Am 02.07.2019 um 19:37 schrieb nIqolay Q:
Why not? Klingonists invent new words all the time.
NOOOOOOO! [add echo here] Hold on! There's a big difference between building words based on the rules described in TKD, and inventing completely new words. It's true that {turuqqangqa'moHtaHneS'a'} was never written by Okrand, but if I make up words like {bawuS vISop} nobody will ever know what it means. I f anyone starts creating words, we will end up in a mess. That's why there is the unwritten rule (ehm, it's in the FAQ) that we should NOT make up any words.
In the case of transliterations, we don't have formal rules.
But the informal rule (again, see the FAQ) is that we should not do it. It's true that there are systems that show how to transliterate, but again, it's not 100% clear. You may think that {moSqaw} is obvious, but a Russian writer may prefer {moSIqva'}.
Transliterating Jesus's name as *QIStoS* or *yeSwa' bar yoSev* or *na'Saretlhngan 'I'eySoS* is presumably less important than explaining to the reader why he's worth writing about in the first place.
And that's why the safest way is to simply write "Jesus", which is a word that everyone understands in enarly every language. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Transliteration
On Jul 2, 2019, at 12:54, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Transliterating Jesus's name as *QIStoS* or *yeSwa' bar yoSev* or *na'Saretlhngan 'I'eySoS* is presumably less important than explaining to the reader why he's worth writing about in the first place.
And that's why the safest way is to simply write "Jesus", which is a word that everyone understands in enarly every language.
[ngoD mung ngu'nISlu'] [citation needed] 耶稣 عيسى Иисус ישוע Ἰησοῦς Yesu Iso Xesús Jesuzi Isuthi Jisu Gesù chaq “Jesus” yajlaH laDwI'pu' HochHom, pongvam DIvI' Hol velqa' Sovchugh. 'a luSov *Hoch* laDwI'pu' 'e' vIHonqu'. nov pong ghItlhlu'meH, tlhIngan Hol Ho'DoS lo'lu'taHvIS, SIbI' pong ghovbe'chugh laDwI', qay'qu'bej'a'? pong 'oH. yajnISlu'chu'be'. pong 'oH 'ej vay' 'oS neH net ghovnIS. pongvam laDqa'lu'DI', rap Doch, Daq, ghot ghap 'oSlu'bogh net ghov. potlhqu'be' tu'qomDaj.
I wrote:
And that's why the safest way is to simply write "Jesus", which is a word that everyone understands in enarly every language.
Am 02.07.2019 um 20:12 schrieb Daniel Dadap:
[ngoD mung ngu'nISlu'] [citation needed]
Okay, you are right. I was thinking about adding something like "most european language speakers" or most people who understand English. :-)
chaq “Jesus” yajlaH laDwI'pu' HochHom, pongvam DIvI' Hol velqa' Sovchugh. 'a luSov *Hoch* laDwI'pu' 'e' vIHonqu'.
bIlughbej. 'ach wa' chutHey tu'lu' je: tlhIngan Hol mu'tlheghDaq latlh mu' Dalo' 'e' DawIvchugh, vaj DIvI' Hol yIlo'. Holvetlh luyaj HochHom ghotpu'. DoyIchlan Hol vIlochugh, vaj 'oH yajbe'lu'be'bej. 'ej latlh Dochmo' jIQochbe': pong 'oH neH. vaj wa' pong Ho'DoS luwIvDI' RTTP, vaj Qapbej mIw. 'ach pongmey law' lulo'DI', Qapbe' paq'e' mughlu'bogh. HamletDaq pongmey lu'oghlu' je, 'ej Qap je paqvetlh. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Hamlet
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:55 PM Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
NOOOOOOO! [add echo here]
Hold on! There's a big difference between building words based on the rules described in TKD, and inventing completely new words.
It's true that {turuqqangqa'moHtaHneS'a'} was never written by Okrand, but if I make up words like {bawuS vISop} nobody will ever know what it means.
That's because there is no systematic approach for going from whatever *bawuS* is supposed to mean to the word *bawuS*. On the other hand, there is at least an informal systemic approach, derived from what Okrand has already done, to make transliterations. The gulf between <whatever> and *bawuS* is much wider than the one between, say, **bIruqlIn* and Brooklyn.
But the informal rule (again, see the FAQ) is that we should not do it. It's true that there are systems that show how to transliterate, but again, it's not 100% clear. You may think that {moSqaw} is obvious, but a Russian writer may prefer {moSIqva'}.
I would prefer something like *moSIqva'* too, since we already know that Okrand prefers to use the native place name when transliterating. There are plenty of other cases where following Okrandian examples can lead to confusion, because not every detail of grammar and syntax has been explained. (In *turuqqangqa'moHtaHneS'a'*, does the combination of *-qang* and *-taH* mean "to be continually willing to do it" or "to be willing to do it continually"? Both? Neither? Either depending on context? How about when you add *-qa'*? The translation I provided is not the only possible one.) (I admit I goofed with *na'Saretlhngan 'I'eySoS*, I was combining English and Greek transliterations and got the word order wrong to boot. If we go with Aramaic, it'd probably be something like *yeSu' naSratlhngan*.)
And that's why the safest way is to simply write "Jesus", which is a word that everyone understands in enarly every language.
If the assumption is that the reader already speaks another language, then why bother translating? When people are translating the New Testament into other languages, they don't just leave it as "Jesus" right there. They find some way to translate it into the local tongue, even if the locals don't already have an accepted word for "Jesus". When I look up the book of Mark on Biblegateway.com in all the various languages they have, they don't have Jesus's name in English or Greek or Hebrew in the middle of the Urdu or Welsh or Cherokee translations. In the case of the Gospels specifically, the entire point is to explain who Jesus is so that you don't need to have heard of him before. The point of translating them is so that people don't have to rely on their knowledge of Jesus from other languages. This is what I was trying to get at: the specific sequences of letters or phonemes you use to talk about Jesus is not as important as the story surrounding him. Just pick one. If you think the audience of potential Klingon Christians would be more likely to use his Federation Standard name, go with *jIySuS*. If you think they'd prefer his name in his native tongue, look it up in Aramaic or Hebrew and come up with something. If you're concerned that an English speaker won't know who you're referring to without context, you're translating the whole book! It's all context! Jesus' name is mentioned in the first verse of the book. Whatever transliteration you use, you're immediately explaining that that name refers to *joH'a' puqloD*. They will get it, I promise.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:35 AM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't participate in the RTTP, and I've never said, that I would participate there. If I wanted to participate there, I would translate the king james version. I've started this translation for myself, and as soon as I'd started it, naHqun and lieven suggested that I add this to the wiki, so I agreed. But I couldn't care less about the RTTP.
You are literally translating a book of the Bible into Klingon. And then posting your work to the KLI's mailing list. I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to make here. Yes, I appreciate you adding your translation to the wiki. It helps preserve the text. And I see no reason to have someone else translate Mathew if you are. I have never asked you to translate from the KJV. Mark is translated from the Greek just as you are doing. Jonah was translated from Hebrew. John and Hebrews are also being actively worked on. I didn't ask those translators to use a specific source text either. ~naHQun
On Jul 2, 2019, at 16:17, M Roney <nahqun@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:35 AM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't participate in the RTTP, and I've never said, that I would participate there. If I wanted to participate there, I would translate the king james version. I've started this translation for myself, and as soon as I'd started it, naHqun and lieven suggested that I add this to the wiki, so I agreed. But I couldn't care less about the RTTP.
You are literally translating a book of the Bible into Klingon. And then posting your work to the KLI's mailing list. I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to make here.
KJV mu'tlhegh mI' chutHom rIchlaw'. KJVvo' paq mughlu' 'e' qapbe' chutHomvam. mu'tlheghmey permeH KJV mI'mey lulo'lu' neH 'e' qap.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 5:01 AM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
And while he's at it, if he could ask 'oqranD for a Ca'Non transliteration of *jesus christ*, he would do me a solid. It makes for a ridiculous translation of the new testament, having to constantly write *jesus*.
The KLI has published plenty of translations without needing to ask for specialized transliterations. And I don't see why we would need to start asking for them now. Honestly, with a book as complicated as The Bible, I'm sure there are much more important words to ask for... Mark uses {yeSuS 'IHrIStoS} while I've been using {yeSuwa 'IHrIStoS}. You are free to leave it as Jesus, use one of the above, or use your own. If you think people may be confused, feel free to leave a list of transliterations used. ~naHQun
On 7/1/2019 7:37 AM, De'vID wrote:
What do people think about the following Klingon "words" from paq'batlh? They don't appear in the main (Klingon-language) text, but are used in otherwise English sentences in the introduction or footnotes.
Okrand has said he wasn't responsible for the introduction, only the main Klingon text. Words that do not appear in what Okrand wrote should not be considered Okrandian canon. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 7:37 AM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
What do people think about the following Klingon "words" from paq'batlh? They don't appear in the main (Klingon-language) text, but are used in otherwise English sentences in the introduction or footnotes.
There are a lot of Klingon words that describe various elements of Klingon culture (rituals, foods, planets, etc.) that haven't been transliterated officially but that are, in some sense, "official" Klingon concepts. KGT mentions the planet Morska and rotting *forshak*. DS9 had "kal'Hyah", the Klingon version of a bachelor party which involves four days of fasting and trials. And so on. If someone took an educated guess at a transliteration for those concepts so they could use them in a sentence, I'd be okay with that. I might get confused if I wasn't well-versed in Klingon culture as depicted on TV, and I wouldn't suggest that *mo'rISqa*, *vorSaq* or *qalHay'aH* end up in boQwI' just yet. In the case of *Huy'reH* and *cha'ang*, the issue is a little different, because the words as presented don't really need to be transliterated. They're already in phonetically-acceptable Klingon. If someone were to ask Marc Okrand for the official Klingon words for those concepts, I feel like his answer would just be "what's wrong with *Huy'reH* and *cha'ang*?" (He seems pretty diplomatic when it comes to handling Klingon words invented by others for specific aspects of Klingon culture.) They're not really generic words, they're very specific concepts, so it seems unlikely that they'll be used in a context where anyone involved hasn't heard of them already. If someone sees the word *vorSaq*, even if they've heard Worf talking about *forshak*, they might still have difficulty connecting the transliteration to the word they know. But if someone's heard of *Huy'reH* from the opening of the paq'batlh, they're probably not going to have much issue connecting that idea to the word *Huy'reH* in a sentence. (It feels a little like asking Marc Okrand what the Klingon spelling for *Qov* or *Quvar* is. It's just a name.) My suggestion would be that they're fine to include, with a note along the lines of "This spelling hasn't been vetted by Okrand, but... come on." (Maybe a little more diplomatic than that.) As for *Qich'lut* and *paq'jachchu*, I'd recommend asking first. *QIch* *lut* is probably fine to include, I think - if Okrand doesn't vet the paq'batlh spelling (with the ' and lowercase i), *QIch lut* is probably what he'd go with. It might be useful to have an entry for them anyway, marked with a ? for "dubious canon" and mentioned to have an archaic spelling. It's possible someone reading paq'batlh might not know they weren't "official", and wonder why they're not there. (I'd also ask if the ' in paq'batlh, paq'raD, et al., is considered by modern Klingons to be the same letter as the qaghwI', or if it's a distinct symbol that just happens to look the same when rendered with *DIvI' Hol ngutlhmey QIv*.)
On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 13:37, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
What do people think about the following Klingon "words" from paq'batlh? They don't appear in the main (Klingon-language) text, but are used in otherwise English sentences in the introduction or footnotes.
xxii. {Huy'reH} "aria style" xxii, 62, 87. {cha'ang} "chorus style" xvii, xxii, xxxv. {Qich'lut} "narrator style" xix. {paq'jachchu} "Book of the Perfect Scream"
{Huy'reH} and {cha'ang}, at least, seem to follow proper modern {tlhIngan Hol} phonology.
{Qich'lut} has a lower-cased "i" and an out-of-place {qaghwI'}.
{paq'jachchu} has that apostrophe after {paq} and a missing {qaghwI'} at the end (if the {jachchu} part is indeed the verb {jachchu'}, as the English translation seems to indicate). On p.xxx, it is explicitly stated that the name {paq'batlh} is in {no' Hol} and that the apostrophe may be a clue to some missing grammatical element. Of course, the book also has sections named {paq'yav}, {paq'raD}, and {paq'QIH}. So {paq'jachchu} is probably just spelled weirdly for the same reason.
Should {Huy'reH} and {cha'ang} be accepted as canon Klingon words as-is? In other words, would you expect them in a new words list? (In particular, I am asking if they should be listed in {boQwI'}.)
The word {Qich'lut} is spelled that way all three times it appears in the book. I notice that in previous discussions on this mailing list, 'IQqu' and Voragh have both spelled it as {QIch lut} (capital-I, no apostrophe, space between the two words). Should {QIch lut} be accepted as the "modern" spelling for the purpose of look-up in word lists?
During our revision of the Introduction section, I sent a version of the above questions to Dr. Okrand, noting that these words seemed not to have been invented by him. Here's what he wrote back. MO:
You're right. I didn't have anything to do with any of the words other than those in the text proper. In writing and workshopping the opera ({'u'}) on which all of this is based, they devised on their own or got from TV or novels or other sources a number of words that they used throughout. For the paq'batlh, they decided to retain the spelling they'd been using all along. I did help with some other words that appear in the introduction — you can easily tell which! — but didn't change the words (technical terminology, jargon) they devised for the various parts of the opera and story. So I guess what I say about the word paq'batlh itself on p. xxx applies to all of these words.
{paq'jachchu} appears that way (no {'} at the end) in the program book for the opera, so it's not a typo in paq'batlh. (end of message) For the 2nd edition, we've decided to retain the unusual spellings for these words. So you can consider them "approved" or whatever by Dr. Okrand as being in {no' Hol}. -- De'vID
participants (12)
-
Alan Anderson -
Daniel Dadap -
De'vID -
Lieven L. Litaer -
Luciano Montanaro -
M Roney -
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
Rhona Fenwick -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin