Read: {romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'} romulan hunter-killer probe The above is Ca'Non.. And although its Ca'Non, I don't like it, let alone use it (or a construction like it..); it's bulky, and I'm a firm believer, that when writing something where you'll not provide the english translation, you need to "cut your throat" (greek idiom) in order to make it simple. You *owe* it to the reader, to produce easy and simple sentences. Or he will just press delete, instead of wasting time, trying to make sense of your crap.. Now, lets forget all these. Yesterday, at another thread, I wrote a sentence, which contained the following: {QangvaD langmeH mIw vImuch} I will present for the chancellor a thinning process However, the intended meaning was "I will present for the chancellor a thinning training program". Then, based on the "romulan hunter-killer probe" Ca'Non, the thought entered my mind to write: {QangvaD, qeqmeH 'ej langmeH mIw vImuch} I will present for the chancellor a process in order to train and in order to thin But since, yesterday bigger fish needed frying, I refrained from using the double {-meH}. However, today I would like to ask, whether this would be something actually correct. Although, even if it is, I would refrain from using it, unless I provided the english translation too.. ~ m. qunen'oS damn, do I love klingon !
On 5/14/2019 10:05 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
{QangvaD, qeqmeH 'ej langmeH mIw vImuch} I will present for the chancellor a process in order to train and in order to thin
However, today I would like to ask, whether this would be something actually correct.
Although, even if it is, I would refrain from using it, unless I provided the english translation too..
Perfectly good and no reason to avoid it. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Agreed. Which is why, according to my notes, it was also called a {HoHwI'} for short in the "Star Trek: Klingon!" game (KCD). These things are extremely lethal, having been programmed with the target's DNA. They are small, capable of flying/hovering, relentless as they stalk their prey, and kill by injecting poison into their victim's heart. In KCD Pok's father Torghn was killed by one when he jumped in front of Gowron, the intended target, at the last possible moment at Pok's {lopno'} celebration. A similar flying assassination probe was also seen in the movie "Dune"; there the "hunter-seeker" was a remote-controlled device, not an autonomous self-guided probe as in KCD. My notes say that someone on the List used {Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'} for those remote-controlled explosive drones operated by terrorist groups and armies nowadays. I rather like that name. A drone that just spies on and tracks a target could be called a *{ghoqbogh 'ej ghochbogh nejwI'} - perhaps {ghochwI'} "tracker" for short. -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons -----Original Message----- From: mayqel qunen'oS {romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'} romulan hunter-killer probe The above is Ca'Non. And although its Ca'Non, I don't like it, let alone use it (or a construction like it..); it's bulky, and I'm a firm believer, that when writing something where you'll not provide the english translation, you need to "cut your throat" (greek idiom) in order to make it simple. You *owe* it to the reader, to produce easy and simple sentences. Or he will just press delete, instead of wasting time, trying to make sense of your crap..
Sent from my iPad
On May 14, 2019, at 10:05, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
However, the intended meaning was "I will present for the chancellor a thinning training program".
Then, based on the "romulan hunter-killer probe" Ca'Non, the thought entered my mind to write:
{QangvaD, qeqmeH 'ej langmeH mIw vImuch} I will present for the chancellor a process in order to train and in order to thin
In this construction, how does one differentiate between something with two purposes versus a purpose that is serving another one? Or does one just rely on context? Because it could be a process for training that also will make him thin (but the training is it’s own purpose and lacks a direct causal link to the thinning), or it could be a process that trains him with the explicit purpose that the training makes him thin. —jevreH
On 5/14/2019 11:21 AM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
On May 14, 2019, at 10:05, mayqel qunen'oS<mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
However, the intended meaning was "I will present for the chancellor a thinning training program".
Then, based on the "romulan hunter-killer probe" Ca'Non, the thought entered my mind to write:
{QangvaD, qeqmeH 'ej langmeH mIw vImuch} I will present for the chancellor a process in order to train and in order to thin In this construction, how does one differentiate between something with two purposes versus a purpose that is serving another one? Or does one just rely on context?
Because it could be a process for training that also will make him thin (but the training is it’s own purpose and lacks a direct causal link to the thinning), or it could be a process that trains him with the explicit purpose that the training makes him thin.
The *'ej* gives the game away. It has to connect two verbal clauses of the same type, which means they can't be modifying each other. The only possible conjunction here is between the *qeqmeH* and the *langmeH,* so there's no chance that *qeqmeH* is modifying *langmeH.* I wouldn't want to construct a sentence where one purpose clause modifies another purpose clause. Start nesting clauses too deep and they become hard to understand. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Interesting.. I hadn't thought of that possibility.. However, although I wouldn't do it while writing somewhere, where I wouldn't be providing the english translation too, here is how I would understand it.. The {tIQbogh qotlhbogh vIghro'}, I would understand it as {tIQbogh (qotlhbogh vIghro')}, i.e. "cat which tickles which is ancient". The {qeqmeH langmeH mIw}, I would understand it as {qeqmeH (langmeH mIw)}, i.e. "thinning process in order to train". I wonder whether the {tIQbogh qotlhbogh vIghro'}, could be read too as, {(tIQbogh qotlhbogh) vIghro'}, although I can't *feel* any actual difference between them. I wonder whether the {tIQbogh qotlhbogh vIghro'} could also mean {tIQbogh 'ej qotlhbogh vIghro'}; although I can't *feel* any actual difference between them. And qeylIS knows I wonder, whether the {qeqmeH langmeH mIw}, could also mean {qeqmeH 'ej langmeH mIw}, which *is* indeed quite different.. ~ m. qunen'oS Ca'Non Ca'Non Ca'Nonoy
On 5/14/2019 1:43 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Interesting.. I hadn't thought of that possibility..
However, although I wouldn't do it while writing somewhere, where I wouldn't be providing the english translation too, here is how I would understand it..
The {tIQbogh qotlhbogh vIghro'}, I would understand it as {tIQbogh (qotlhbogh vIghro')}, i.e. "cat which tickles which is ancient".
The {qeqmeH langmeH mIw}, I would understand it as {qeqmeH (langmeH mIw)}, i.e. "thinning process in order to train".
I wonder whether the {tIQbogh qotlhbogh vIghro'}, could be read too as, {(tIQbogh qotlhbogh) vIghro'}, although I can't *feel* any actual difference between them.
While nothing in the given rules prohibits {Xbogh {Ybogh Z}} or {XmeH {YmeH Z}}, we've never seen anything like them. I don't see any way these could be interpreted as {{Xbogh Ybogh} Z} or {{XmeH YmeH} Z}.
I wonder whether the {tIQbogh qotlhbogh vIghro'} could also mean {tIQbogh 'ej qotlhbogh vIghro'}; although I can't *feel* any actual difference between them.
The only semantic difference I see is in scoping: in *tIQbogh qotlhbogh vIghro'* the tickling is more closely associated with the cat than the being ancient. In *tIQbogh 'ej qotlhbogh vIghro'* the tickling and the being ancient are equally applicable to the cat.
And qeylIS knows I wonder, whether the {qeqmeH langmeH mIw}, could also mean {qeqmeH 'ej langmeH mIw}, which *is* indeed quite different..
In both cases just stick with the one with the conjunction. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Sent from my iPad
On May 14, 2019, at 11:33, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 5/14/2019 11:21 AM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
On May 14, 2019, at 10:05, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
However, the intended meaning was "I will present for the chancellor a thinning training program".
Then, based on the "romulan hunter-killer probe" Ca'Non, the thought entered my mind to write:
{QangvaD, qeqmeH 'ej langmeH mIw vImuch} I will present for the chancellor a process in order to train and in order to thin In this construction, how does one differentiate between something with two purposes versus a purpose that is serving another one? Or does one just rely on context?
Because it could be a process for training that also will make him thin (but the training is it’s own purpose and lacks a direct causal link to the thinning), or it could be a process that trains him with the explicit purpose that the training makes him thin. The 'ej gives the game away. It has to connect two verbal clauses of the same type, which means they can't be modifying each other. The only possible conjunction here is between the qeqmeH and the langmeH, so there's no chance that qeqmeH is modifying langmeH.
I wouldn't want to construct a sentence where one purpose clause modifies another purpose clause. Start nesting clauses too deep and they become hard to understand.
What you say follows my intuition, but the example provided seems to counter this. The sentence above {qeqmeH ‘ej langmeH} implies that the process is to train and to thin the chancellor as dual purposes (equality of purpose) — however my understanding is that the intent is that the training is causal to the thinning. A causal relationship seems like it should be {langmeH qeqmeH mIw} — “for the purpose of thinning, a processing for training”. —jevreH
On 5/14/2019 1:52 PM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
On May 14, 2019, at 11:33, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
On 5/14/2019 11:21 AM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
On May 14, 2019, at 10:05, mayqel qunen'oS<mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
However, the intended meaning was "I will present for the chancellor a thinning training program".
Then, based on the "romulan hunter-killer probe" Ca'Non, the thought entered my mind to write:
{QangvaD, qeqmeH 'ej langmeH mIw vImuch} I will present for the chancellor a process in order to train and in order to thin In this construction, how does one differentiate between something with two purposes versus a purpose that is serving another one? Or does one just rely on context?
Because it could be a process for training that also will make him thin (but the training is it’s own purpose and lacks a direct causal link to the thinning), or it could be a process that trains him with the explicit purpose that the training makes him thin.
The *'ej* gives the game away. It has to connect two verbal clauses of the same type, which means they can't be modifying each other. The only possible conjunction here is between the *qeqmeH* and the *langmeH,* so there's no chance that *qeqmeH* is modifying *langmeH.*
I wouldn't want to construct a sentence where one purpose clause modifies another purpose clause. Start nesting clauses too deep and they become hard to understand.
What you say follows my intuition, but the example provided seems to counter this.
The sentence above {qeqmeH ‘ej langmeH} implies that the process is to train and to thin the chancellor as dual purposes (equality of purpose) — however my understanding is that the intent is that the training is causal to the thinning. A causal relationship seems like it should be {langmeH qeqmeH mIw} — “for the purpose of thinning, a processing for training”.
A Romulan hunter-killer probe is a *romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI',* but the killing is dependent on the finding, yet they are given equal billing in the sentence. It's a probe that finds and a probe that kills, but neither of these functions is independent of the other. A dieting program is a procedure for training and a procedure for being thin. Neither function is independent of the other. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On May 14, 2019, at 14:12, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote: A dieting program is a procedure for training and a procedure for being thin. Neither function is independent of the other.
Yes, but interdependence in purpose is not the same as causality. Training and thinning can be interdependent purposes of the same process, but each is an individually considered complementary purpose with equal weight and intention. However, the process could be using training to cause the thinning — in which case, the purpose of thinning integrates the purpose of training and the training is directly and intentionally causal to the thinning. Military training is done both for the purpose of physical conditioning and to develop relevant battlefield skills — those two purposes are interdependent, however they are not causal to one another, which is why different parts of the training focus on skills and conditioning individually. Crossfit is a training program for physical fitness; it was designed as a workout process for fitness (but not for skills training). So, we have two cases: 1. the training and fitness are independent goals from the same process 2. the training supports (causes) the fitness from the process. In English we can easily differentiate: “I have a process for training and for fitness conditioning” versus “I have a process for training for fitness conditioning.” —jevreH
On 5/14/2019 3:30 PM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
On May 14, 2019, at 14:12, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
A dieting program is a procedure for training and a procedure for being thin. Neither function is independent of the other.
Yes, but interdependence in purpose is not the same as causality.
And one is a nested relative clause and one is a nested purpose clause. I'd only expect to see causality in a purpose clause. While one can perhaps tease out some minute difference in meaning here, I don't think it's something the average person would be parsing — unless Okrand were to arbitrarily tell us that it is. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
See below... charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
{QangvaD, qeqmeH 'ej langmeH mIw vImuch} I will present for the chancellor a process in order to train and in order to thin
The sentence above {qeqmeH ‘ej langmeH} implies that the process is to train and to thin the chancellor as dual purposes (equality of purpose) — however my understanding is that the intent is that the training is causal to the thinning. A causal relationship seems like it should be {langmeH qeqmeH mIw} — “for the purpose of thinning, a processing for training”.
I know. I’m alway the guy who tells you what you can’t do, right? It may be possible to nest purpose or relative clauses, but we’ve never seen examples and I doubt there’s a way to do this that isn’t too complex to reliably parse. Add that it’s unnecessary. There are ways of doing what you want done without pushing the grammar so far. Yes, you can hammer a screw into a piece of wood, but why insist on using a hammer? A screwdriver does so much neater a job of it. QangvaD langchoHmeH qeqlI’ghach vIghojmoHlaH. [This is one of those sentences that is not easy to translate into English because it carries nuances English is ill-equipped to convey without either rambling on, or omitting stuff.] langchoH Qang neH Qang. Qu’vamvaD mIw vImuch. tlhoy pI’ Qang net Sov. pIvchoHmeH vIQaH vIneH. chebmeyDaj nupmeH mIw vIchup. We have plenty of ways to say it clearly and gracefully. We can’t let ourselves become fixated on a specific tool, or we risk pushing the grammar beyond its structural limits. I really think that someone learning the language should start with simple expressions, then learn more grammatical constructions and use them simply, and learn more constructions and use them simply. Take an idea and try to express it using different grammatical constructions, and see which one most accurately expresses your idea; one expression, given different ways. I don’t recommend grabbing a single grammatical construction and forcing every idea possible through it, and then arguing about why you think each one should work. It’s been done to death here. For decades. I have this wild fantasy that someday this practice will become less fascinating. It would probably never occur to me to nest dependent clauses because there isn’t any need to do this. Okrand has clearly stated that often Klingon speakers break down what an English speaker would express in one long, complex sentence into multiple, simpler sentences. That general trend suggests that if the expression is controversial, perhaps it is because you aren’t really trying to use the grammar lightly and express things with the simplest available grammar. You are starting with the grammar and then trying to figure out the full scope of what can be said with each piece of it. Your cart is in front of your horse. Yes, a horse can push a cart, but steering is simpler if you turn the horse around. As an exercise, try saying one thing with different grammatical constructions, instead of using one grammatical construction to say a bunch of different things. Then decide which of these constructions that you used comes closer to expressing what you want people to understand. It’s like brainstorming and then refining. Before you earn your chops, you can’t just spontaneously come up with the best way to express an idea. You really should try to come up with a bunch of DIFFERENT ways to say one thing, and through the experience of doing this, you get better and quickly coming up with the best way to say a thing, because you remain well practiced with all of Klingon grammar, instead of overly muscular with too few grammatical tools. Because Klingon is a language, not a code. There isn’t just one best way to say ANYTHING. Don’t translate the words. Say the thing. Don’t translate the grammar into equivalent grammar. Say the thing. Say the thing a bunch of different ways, and then let the results speak to you, and see which one speaks clearest to you. Even your badly constructed things will teach you what works and what doesn’t work, and you’ll learn more because of your wider grasp of the grammar. I know. I’m weird to suggest this. I’m the only guy that I know who regularly suggests a bunch of different ways to say an expression on the list. Anyone else who regularly does this or who thinks it’s a good idea should speak up. We’re certainly in the minority, if indeed we are even plural.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 14, 2019, at 18:11, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
It may be possible to nest purpose or relative clauses, but we’ve never seen examples and I doubt there’s a way to do this that isn’t too complex to reliably parse. Add that it’s unnecessary. There are ways of doing what you want done without pushing the grammar so far.
charghwI’, I was asking for clarification on the point based on those “minute nuances” SuStel was describing. Please keep in mind that you likely have over a decade of experience beyond some of us newer speakers (and I’d be willing to bet I’m in the top 3 newest speakers posting to the list — if not the newest speaker that posts). Things that are obvious to you now may not be to a new speaker, especially since many of us are self-taught to varying degrees and may or may not have the benefit of any formal linguistics training (I know technical linguistic terms have tripped me up on more than one occasion, and I’ve seen it happen to others — I too understood “marked” as meaning “emphasised” in a very recent thread until someone was kind enough to hurl a spear). Perhaps it’s because of my discipline, working where I do in the arts I’m hardwired to push boundaries and poke theories and systems until they break — it’s pretty much my job — and many of those things that I work with centre around information processing and human expression; so language as a means of expressing oneself is interesting to me. Finding the varied ways one /can/ express themselves is interesting to me, discovering the nuances between them is interesting to me. Maybe I push too hard, if so, I apologise; but the goal is to learn, and learn the diversity of expression of the language because expression in Klingon is interesting. We shouldn’t do it because Okrand hasn’t given us a form for it. I agree that it’s a bad idea based on the limited information, I’m not arguing that. We have no precedent for nesting relative clauses. However I disagree about our ability to: we are cognitively capable of parsing long and complicated sentences with many, many, many labyrinthian clauses, anyone who has read old-style academic writing (especially in English or German — doubly so English translations of German) can attest to this. There is no reason we could not follow nested -meH clauses /if/ we had clarification from Okrand on how their order of presentation determined their logical order. It seems difficult since this is a second language for all of us and we have a lack of clarity on what the ordering of clauses really implies (as I understand it). However, we could use other forms to get the point across, as you say, but those have their own nuances and meanings — a change in syntax usually results in a change in semantics, even if the information is the same; it’s basic semiotics, change the symbol and the meaning shifts. The more diversity we discover in a language the more freedom we have to communicate beyond factual statements. Intuitively, one would think the integrating purpose would come first, followed by each utilitarian purpose in order of increasing immediacy; however, as has been pointed out (and the purpose of my initial question), we don’t know. And maybe Klingons just don’t do this: we don’t know that either. But, none of that is my core question/point. I question the current understanding of the complementary and/or causal relationship between two -meH clauses separated by a conjunction. I disagree with SuStel that the difference between the two cases (causal and complementary) is trivial from a semantic point of view: I think it is quite important to distinguish between purposes that have a dominant/subordinate relationship between one another, and purposes that are equal (“killing two birds with one stone” so to speak). Maybe there’s more canon that clarifies that someone can reference beyond the “Romulan Hunter-Killer”? In mayqel’s suggestion, the clauses seemed to have a causal relationship: the processes is to help the chancellor train, and that training is designed to cause thinning. The reference quoted using {‘ej} seems (to me) to promote an equality between the causes: the process is to help the chancellor training (his bat’leth fighting, his disruptor aim, whatever), and it also causes thinning. This points to the original clarification I was seeking: how we disambiguate between them. My sense (admitting my inexperience) is that the {‘ej} use should be avoided for statements of a causal relationship (like mayqel’s, if my interpretation of his statement is correct). As you posit, there are more clear ways of indicating the relationship between the process, the training, and the thinning; however, (and ironically) a nested -meH statement would end up being more compact in this case; and I feel that it would signal the causal link more strongly. {QangvaD langmoHmeH qeqmeH mIw vInab} — (invalid/questionable construction) “For the chancellor I devised a process for training for thinning.” Or more naturally: “I devised a thinning training process for the chancellor.” {langmeH Qang qeqnIS, ghaHvaD qeqmeH mIw vInab} — “For the chancellor to be thin, he needs to train. I’ve devised a process for training for him.” Although, {mI’meH mIw} might be better for fitness. Thus, my question and the point of clarification I’ve been seeking is one of disambiguation between possible meanings of a construction; so that I might better understand its proper use — and if any alternate constructions/uses shake out, that’s vIl je. —jevreH meHghem ‘oH meHghem ngoQ’e’
charghwI', your reasoning is seriously flawed.. In order to really learn something, one has to explore everything, even if it is to learn what he should avoid doing. Your persistence, trying to force people not to ask, the things *you* consider "extreme", or "to be taking the rules of grammar to their limits", is infuriating, and counterproductive. You don't seem to realize, that the purpose of this list, isn't to create people, who will only possess the skill to write a couple of sentences in an online game, just to impress their girlfriend. The purpose of the list of the klingon language institute, is and needs to be, to create experts. But as I said elsewhere, no one becomes an expert unless he explores everything. Knowing what *not* to do, is *exactly* as important, as knowing what you *should* do. So, either comment on the questions asked, saying with arguments *why* you think something is wrong, while focusing on the grammar, or please be silent. I can't read another argument like "don't use this grammar tool, because we have another". If you don't want someone to use something, then *do* prove *why* this something is wrong. Not doing so, degrades your reasoning to actually saying to someone "shut up, don't ask". You have decades of experience, which could be of benefit to inexperienced people. And as a friend of maltz, you have the responsibility of acting so. So, for the benefit of everyone, and the klingon language, which you and all of us here love, please get your act together. ~ m. qunen'oS Ca'Non Ca'Non Ca'Non holiest
I thought some other possible combinations as well.. {Suvbogh ngongmeH Duj} ship in order to experiment, which fights I can't find anything wrong or confusing with the above, or any other way for the reader to understand it. {mutlhmeH potlhbogh Sommi'} tool which is important in order to construct I find the above possibly confusing; do we talk of an "important tool, which happens to be used in order to construct", or about "a tool which is important because we use it to construct" ? Also, another beautiful question came to mind; We know that we can say {-bogh 'ej -bogh noun}, and we said that it would be correct to say {-meH 'ej -meH noun}. But I wonder, whether we could say too {-bogh 'ej -meH noun}, and of course the variant {-meH 'ej -bogh noun}. For example: {Suvbogh 'ej ngongmeH Duj} ship in order to experiment, and which fights {mutlhmeH 'ej potlhbogh Sommi'} tool which is important, and in order to construct maj.. and now, off to take an aspirin, because all this is giving me a headache.. ~ m. qunen'oS klingon is a work of art
On 5/15/2019 10:02 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
We know that we can say {-bogh 'ej -bogh noun}, and we said that it would be correct to say {-meH 'ej -meH noun}.
But I wonder, whether we could say too {-bogh 'ej -meH noun}, and of course the variant {-meH 'ej -bogh noun}.
For example:
{Suvbogh 'ej ngongmeH Duj} ship in order to experiment, and which fights
{mutlhmeH 'ej potlhbogh Sommi'} tool which is important, and in order to construct
Probably not. At least, any English style guide will tell you that the separate components should always have "equal syntactic importance" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_(grammar)#Coordinating_conjunction...). So far, I believe every canonical example of conjunctions in Klingon have followed that. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
My reasoning is not seriously flawed. Saying it is doesn’t make it so. We can have differences of opinion without either of us being wrong. … [believe it or not, I just omitted a LOT of stuff. Thank me for that.] My point is that Klingon is a language, not a code, and ideally, if you want to actually understand it, you should speak it like a language, instead of taking English text and figuring out how to perfectly encode it into the one and only true and correct method to produce the one and only truely correct translation. That’s not how language works. That’s not how translation works. For all you native English speakers, do you really believe that if you have an idea, that idea can only be expressed with one specific grammatical construction and word choice in English? Thought = sentence? That’s an absurd idea. So, if you want to speak English well, you should practice expressing one idea several different ways, and then see what works best. Use different grammar and vocabulary. This is how you can become better with the language. The same is true for Klingon. If you can only think of one way to express a given idea in Klingon, then you are neither very good with the language, nor are you building the skill set needed to become better at it. Yes, I’m better at this than a beginner is because I’ve had decades of exposure to the grammar and vocabulary. I get that. But I’m not just saying this because this is how I think, so everyone should think like me. I’m saying this because I genuinely believe that even at early stages, you learn much more by trying to express the same idea in Klingon using different vocabulary and grammar choices than you learn if you pick up a screwdriver and do everything possible that you can think of to do with a screwdriver before picking up a hammer and doing everything you can possibly think of with a hammer, and then pick up a hack saw and do everything you can possibly think of with a hacksaw. That’s not really how you learn to fix things with tools. It’s just dicking around. And for decades, the majority of arguments on this list have been fueled by people just dicking around, which also explains why, out of the many hundreds of people who have joined this list over the years, so few of them have actually become skilled with the use of the language. You don’t really learn the language by dicking around with its individual pieces. I know you’d like to. You are not alone in this. Many dozens have preceded you. Many dozens will follow. Rarely do they join the ranks of skilled speakers of the language, despite their dominance on this list. They have stubbornly argued for decades… Well, typically for a year or so and then they go away and get replaced by someone else doing the same thing. There is no end to people wanting to do this. Especially linguists. It’s the futile thing that happens here a lot. Maybe it sustains interest in the language in a perverse way, but it doesn’t really teach us much. It doesn’t really improve our skill as much as the proponents would suggest. I know: That sounds like I’m saying that your reasoning is seriously flawed. My intent is less to convey that idea than to suggest that this list has been around for a long time. There have been many verbal battles fought over how far one can stretch a given Klingon grammatical construction. Those battles pass and new ones replace them of remarkably similar character. Like Sisyphus, we roll our stone up the hill and it rolls back down again, over and over. Birds pluck out our liver and it grows back. And yet we still don’t do a remarkably good job of teaching people how to speak the language, because we are too distracted by passionate arguments over individual points of grammar, instead of learning how to speak the language well enough that we could just write everything in Klingon and communicate with each other without having to include English translations for everything we write in Klingon [to be polite to beginners]. We started a list just for writing anything in Klingon AND I WAS THE ONLY PERSON WHO USED IT. That is an exaggeration, but certainly I wrote well over half of the messages on that list, not because I’m more skilled but because apparently most of the other skilled people around at the time didn’t have as much interest in using the language as they had in arguing about it in English. If we wanted to learn how to communicate in Klingon, we would practice saying a single thing multiple ways, using different vocabulary and grammar, and then look at the list of what we came up with and decide which choice worked best. We would then more quickly learn how to shorten the list, with fewer failures appearing on it. Pretty soon, we’d just be able to think in Klingon and write or speak in it. My one actual contribution to the language was a result of that practice. We didn’t have a question word for “which”, as in “Which weapon do you want?” Because I wasn’t attached to the specific grammatical construction of a question, it occurred to me that the idea at the core of “Which weapon do you want?” is the command, “Choose your weapon!” So, we don’t need no stinkin’ question word for “which”. A language that didn’t have that word could still express the same idea. So, the language doesn’t need the word. Okrand thought the idea was cool. It stuck. It became the official way to do it. No, I’m not really special for coming up with this. Meanwhile, my method of looking around at ALL the grammar and vocabulary that I know and trying to build more than one way to express whatever it is I’m trying to say is a very useful approach to learning the language, and I honestly think it is underused among this population. I think that if more people tried to do this more often, we’d have a lot more functional Klingon speakers on this list than we do. Anybody can read a section describing a grammatical construction in TKD and then tear into it on the list, challenging the world to contest your personal interpretation of what you can do with that specific grammatical construction. It’s been done to death here. For decades. Yet here we are, our rock rolling down the hill again; our liver growing back. It would be much more challenging for you to take what you’ve already learned and try to say one thing at least three unrelated ways, and then take another thing you’d like to say and say it three unrelated ways… or maybe take one thing and say it a dozen ways. Someone asked how to say, “I love you,” in Klingon, and I filled a page with really good ideas. None were the one and only perfect encoding of the words “I love you,” in Klingon, but each conveyed the idea a lot better than {qamuSHa’}, which is a dry, passionless encoding of the words “I love you.” It’s exactly as vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness in Klingon as the English original. If you really mean it, you’d say it some other way. That’s what I think is missing here. Start with the spark behind the idea and let it illuminate multiple, different expressions, and see which one shines brightest. I honestly believe that’s a better way to learn the language. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 15, 2019, at 5:10 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
charghwI',
your reasoning is seriously flawed..
In order to really learn something, one has to explore everything, even if it is to learn what he should avoid doing.
... So, for the benefit of everyone, and the klingon language, which you and all of us here love, please get your act together.
~ m. qunen'oS Ca'Non Ca'Non Ca'Non holiest _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 5/15/2019 3:36 PM, Will Martin wrote:
My point is that Klingon is a language, not a code, and ideally, if you want to actually understand it, you should speak it like a language, instead of taking English text and figuring out how to perfectly encode it into the one and only true and correct method to produce the one and only truely correct translation. That’s not how language works. That’s not how translation works.
For all you native English speakers, do you really believe that if you have an idea, that idea can only be expressed with one specific grammatical construction and word choice in English? Thought = sentence?
That’s an absurd idea.
Again with the "Klingon is not a code" thing. Nobody here is suggesting it is. They're looking for things that aren't against the rules, but aren't obviously correct, then asking, "Can I do that?" -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
And how does that teach them how to say actual expressions in Klingon? How many years will it be before they actually make common use of the thing they passionately argued about for a dozen messages in a thread? I honestly think they’d be much better served if they tried to say a common expression several different ways. Then they’d be learning how to USE the language instead of just how to argue about it. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 15, 2019, at 3:48 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 5/15/2019 3:36 PM, Will Martin wrote:
My point is that Klingon is a language, not a code, and ideally, if you want to actually understand it, you should speak it like a language, instead of taking English text and figuring out how to perfectly encode it into the one and only true and correct method to produce the one and only truely correct translation. That’s not how language works. That’s not how translation works.
For all you native English speakers, do you really believe that if you have an idea, that idea can only be expressed with one specific grammatical construction and word choice in English? Thought = sentence?
That’s an absurd idea.
Again with the "Klingon is not a code" thing. Nobody here is suggesting it is. They're looking for things that aren't against the rules, but aren't obviously correct, then asking, "Can I do that?"
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 5/15/2019 3:52 PM, Will Martin wrote:
And how does that teach them how to say actual expressions in Klingon?
They're asking whether these things can BE actual expressions in Klingon. If you don't think so, explain why not. Without accusing them of trying to encode English into Klingon.
How many years will it be before they actually make common use of the thing they passionately argued about for a dozen messages in a thread?
I honestly think they’d be much better served if they tried to say a common expression several different ways. Then they’d be learning how to USE the language instead of just how to argue about it.
I don't think it's for you to say how they enjoy the language. Saying "This doesn't seem to be against the rules; does it work?" is not an unproductive activity. I'd honestly never considered constructing nested purpose clauses before, but I can find no reasonable prohibition against it. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Is that really the best you can do? Explore the possibility of nesting purpose clauses, which may not be valid, instead of exploring several other ways to express the same idea without doing anything at all that might be invalid? In other words, don’t learn how to express meaningful sentences in Klingon. Focus all your attention on purpose clauses and all the possible (but perhaps invalid) things that you can do with them. That’s really going to help develop your ability to speak Klingon. Keep at it. It’s been working so well up to this point as a method for learning the language. See all the Klingon text that people write on this list? Isn’t that proof that this is the right way to learn the language? charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 15, 2019, at 4:19 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 5/15/2019 3:52 PM, Will Martin wrote:
And how does that teach them how to say actual expressions in Klingon?
They're asking whether these things can BE actual expressions in Klingon. If you don't think so, explain why not. Without accusing them of trying to encode English into Klingon.
How many years will it be before they actually make common use of the thing they passionately argued about for a dozen messages in a thread?
I honestly think they’d be much better served if they tried to say a common expression several different ways. Then they’d be learning how to USE the language instead of just how to argue about it.
I don't think it's for you to say how they enjoy the language. Saying "This doesn't seem to be against the rules; does it work?" is not an unproductive activity. I'd honestly never considered constructing nested purpose clauses before, but I can find no reasonable prohibition against it.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
charghwI’ choSovbe’. pIj jIghel vIneH, ‘a tlhIngan Hol jatlhbe’ ‘e’ ‘oSbe’. jIQummeH not tlhIngan Hol vIlo’ ‘e’ DaSovbe’. tlhIngan Hol vIlo’laHbe’ ‘e’ DaSovbe’ je. Dochmeyvam bop ‘e’ yIjatlhQo’. DuSaQ’a’ ghojmoHwI’ jIH. DuSaQ’a’Daq jIghojmoHpu’. {ghojmoH QeD} vIHaDpu’. ghojtaHghach DaDelDI’: bIlughbe’. not ghojwI’vaD {Qo’ Qo’ Qo’} jatlh ghojmoHwI’ QaQ. yIDel, yIDelqa’, yIchuH, yIchuHqa’. not {Qo’} jatlhlu’. ghojwI’vaD {Qo’} jatlhlu’DI’: pagh ghojmoH, pagh Qej je. pIj qatlh bup tlhIngan jatlhwI’ chu’? chaq botapmo’ — {Qo’ Qo’ Qo’, DIvI’ Hol ngoq ‘oH} — Hegh qa’chaj. —jevreH Sent from my iPad
On May 15, 2019, at 16:26, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
Is that really the best you can do?
Explore the possibility of nesting purpose clauses, which may not be valid, instead of exploring several other ways to express the same idea without doing anything at all that might be invalid?
In other words, don’t learn how to express meaningful sentences in Klingon. Focus all your attention on purpose clauses and all the possible (but perhaps invalid) things that you can do with them.
That’s really going to help develop your ability to speak Klingon.
Keep at it. It’s been working so well up to this point as a method for learning the language. See all the Klingon text that people write on this list? Isn’t that proof that this is the right way to learn the language?
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 15, 2019, at 4:19 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 5/15/2019 3:52 PM, Will Martin wrote: And how does that teach them how to say actual expressions in Klingon?
They're asking whether these things can BE actual expressions in Klingon. If you don't think so, explain why not. Without accusing them of trying to encode English into Klingon.
How many years will it be before they actually make common use of the thing they passionately argued about for a dozen messages in a thread?
I honestly think they’d be much better served if they tried to say a common expression several different ways. Then they’d be learning how to USE the language instead of just how to argue about it.
I don't think it's for you to say how they enjoy the language. Saying "This doesn't seem to be against the rules; does it work?" is not an unproductive activity. I'd honestly never considered constructing nested purpose clauses before, but I can find no reasonable prohibition against it.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Hol ghojmeH, Holvam lo’lu’nIS. qeqnISlu’. reH Holvam Dellu'taH, latlh Hol lo’taHvIS, ‘e’ Dachup’a’? Hol ghojDI’ ghojwI’, Hol lo’nIS ghojwI’vetlh. DubmeH HolvetlhDaq luSnIS ghojwI’vetlh. not tlhIngan Hol yIlo’ jatlhlaw' ghoHwI’pu’. yIghoH neH. ghojmeH, pup mIwvam. wejpuH. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 15, 2019, at 5:08 PM, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com> wrote:
charghwI’
choSovbe’. pIj jIghel vIneH, ‘a tlhIngan Hol jatlhbe’ ‘e’ ‘oSbe’.
jIQummeH not tlhIngan Hol vIlo’ ‘e’ DaSovbe’. tlhIngan Hol vIlo’laHbe’ ‘e’ DaSovbe’ je. Dochmeyvam bop ‘e’ yIjatlhQo’.
DuSaQ’a’ ghojmoHwI’ jIH. DuSaQ’a’Daq jIghojmoHpu’. {ghojmoH QeD} vIHaDpu’. ghojtaHghach DaDelDI’: bIlughbe’. not ghojwI’vaD {Qo’ Qo’ Qo’} jatlh ghojmoHwI’ QaQ. yIDel, yIDelqa’, yIchuH, yIchuHqa’. not {Qo’} jatlhlu’. ghojwI’vaD {Qo’} jatlhlu’DI’: pagh ghojmoH, pagh Qej je.
pIj qatlh bup tlhIngan jatlhwI’ chu’? chaq botapmo’ — {Qo’ Qo’ Qo’, DIvI’ Hol ngoq ‘oH} — Hegh qa’chaj.
—jevreH
Sent from my iPad
On May 15, 2019, at 16:26, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com <mailto:willmartin2@mac.com>> wrote:
Is that really the best you can do?
Explore the possibility of nesting purpose clauses, which may not be valid, instead of exploring several other ways to express the same idea without doing anything at all that might be invalid?
In other words, don’t learn how to express meaningful sentences in Klingon. Focus all your attention on purpose clauses and all the possible (but perhaps invalid) things that you can do with them.
That’s really going to help develop your ability to speak Klingon.
Keep at it. It’s been working so well up to this point as a method for learning the language. See all the Klingon text that people write on this list? Isn’t that proof that this is the right way to learn the language?
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 15, 2019, at 4:19 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
On 5/15/2019 3:52 PM, Will Martin wrote:
And how does that teach them how to say actual expressions in Klingon?
They're asking whether these things can BE actual expressions in Klingon. If you don't think so, explain why not. Without accusing them of trying to encode English into Klingon.
How many years will it be before they actually make common use of the thing they passionately argued about for a dozen messages in a thread?
I honestly think they’d be much better served if they tried to say a common expression several different ways. Then they’d be learning how to USE the language instead of just how to argue about it.
I don't think it's for you to say how they enjoy the language. Saying "This doesn't seem to be against the rules; does it work?" is not an unproductive activity. I'd honestly never considered constructing nested purpose clauses before, but I can find no reasonable prohibition against it.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org>
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org>
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On May 15, 2019, at 16:34, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
not tlhIngan Hol yIlo’ jatlhlaw' ghoHwI’pu’. yIghoH neH. ghojmeH, pup mIwvam.
not tlhIngan Hol yIlo' jatlh pagh. puSmo' pab DelmeH tlhIngan Hol mu'tay', pab rIchmeH DIvI' Hol' ngeD law' tlhIngan Hol ngeD puS. 'ej pab SIvlu'mo' naDev pab rIchlu'. DIvI' Hol lo'lu' 'ej nap meq. 'a tlhIngan Hol jatlhlu'chugh, bep pagh 'e' vIHar.
chargwI’ Doch qaghel vIneH. yIqel: Dochmeyvam wIghelDI’, chay’ meqvam vItu’? chaq tlhIngan Hol wIjatlhtaH, ‘ej qaSmo’ ghu’van wIghelbogh; ‘a qarchugh maSovbe’ vaj maghel. Dochmeyvam wIghelmo’ ghu’ wIghomba’ qar’a’? vaj vogh tlhIngan Hol wIjatlhtaH qar’a’? tlhIngan Hol wIqeqbe’ ‘e’ Daqapqa’taH; ‘a bIlughbe’ba’. tlhIngan Hol wIlo’taHba’. vabDot: ghomvamvaD QIn rut wIqonmeH tlhIngan Hol wIlo’ mayqel jIH je. qen yIH ‘up bop ‘e’ vIghItlh, ‘ej tlhIngan Hol vIlo’. ‘a jupwI’vaD jIjatlh vIneHDI’ latlh Daqmay wIlo’. {Twitter}Daq tlhIngan Hol neH vIlo’ — pa tlhIngan Hol neH lo’bogh ghom’e’ tu’lu’. {Facebook}Daq tlhIngan Hol jatlhwI’ tu’lu’, ‘ej law’ chu’wI’. [Discord}Daq jatlhwI’ law’ tu’lu’ je, ‘a pIj pa vIghoS tlhIngan Hol vIjatlh vIneHchugh. naDev tlhIngan Hol vIlo’nIS, ‘a Dochmey bop ‘e’ vIjatlh: Daj ‘e’ DaHar, ‘e’ vIHon. vaj jupwI’vaD jatlhmeH latlh Qum vIlo’. naDev tlhIngan Hol Dajtlh DaneHchugh, yIbepQo’ ‘ej marIchmeH Doch Daj Datu’. —jevreH Sent from my iPad
On May 15, 2019, at 17:34, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
Hol ghojmeH, Holvam lo’lu’nIS. qeqnISlu’. reH Holvam Dellu'taH, latlh Hol lo’taHvIS, ‘e’ Dachup’a’?
Hol ghojDI’ ghojwI’, Hol lo’nIS ghojwI’vetlh. DubmeH HolvetlhDaq luSnIS ghojwI’vetlh.
not tlhIngan Hol yIlo’ jatlhlaw' ghoHwI’pu’. yIghoH neH. ghojmeH, pup mIwvam.
wejpuH.
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 15, 2019, at 5:08 PM, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com> wrote:
charghwI’
choSovbe’. pIj jIghel vIneH, ‘a tlhIngan Hol jatlhbe’ ‘e’ ‘oSbe’.
jIQummeH not tlhIngan Hol vIlo’ ‘e’ DaSovbe’. tlhIngan Hol vIlo’laHbe’ ‘e’ DaSovbe’ je. Dochmeyvam bop ‘e’ yIjatlhQo’.
DuSaQ’a’ ghojmoHwI’ jIH. DuSaQ’a’Daq jIghojmoHpu’. {ghojmoH QeD} vIHaDpu’. ghojtaHghach DaDelDI’: bIlughbe’. not ghojwI’vaD {Qo’ Qo’ Qo’} jatlh ghojmoHwI’ QaQ. yIDel, yIDelqa’, yIchuH, yIchuHqa’. not {Qo’} jatlhlu’. ghojwI’vaD {Qo’} jatlhlu’DI’: pagh ghojmoH, pagh Qej je.
pIj qatlh bup tlhIngan jatlhwI’ chu’? chaq botapmo’ — {Qo’ Qo’ Qo’, DIvI’ Hol ngoq ‘oH} — Hegh qa’chaj.
—jevreH
Sent from my iPad
On May 15, 2019, at 16:26, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
Is that really the best you can do?
Explore the possibility of nesting purpose clauses, which may not be valid, instead of exploring several other ways to express the same idea without doing anything at all that might be invalid?
In other words, don’t learn how to express meaningful sentences in Klingon. Focus all your attention on purpose clauses and all the possible (but perhaps invalid) things that you can do with them.
That’s really going to help develop your ability to speak Klingon.
Keep at it. It’s been working so well up to this point as a method for learning the language. See all the Klingon text that people write on this list? Isn’t that proof that this is the right way to learn the language?
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 15, 2019, at 4:19 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 5/15/2019 3:52 PM, Will Martin wrote: And how does that teach them how to say actual expressions in Klingon?
They're asking whether these things can BE actual expressions in Klingon. If you don't think so, explain why not. Without accusing them of trying to encode English into Klingon.
How many years will it be before they actually make common use of the thing they passionately argued about for a dozen messages in a thread?
I honestly think they’d be much better served if they tried to say a common expression several different ways. Then they’d be learning how to USE the language instead of just how to argue about it.
I don't think it's for you to say how they enjoy the language. Saying "This doesn't seem to be against the rules; does it work?" is not an unproductive activity. I'd honestly never considered constructing nested purpose clauses before, but I can find no reasonable prohibition against it.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On May 15, 2019, at 14:36, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
My point is that Klingon is a language, not a code, and ideally, if you want to actually understand it, you should speak it like a language, instead of taking English text and figuring out how to perfectly encode it into the one and only true and correct method to produce the one and only truely correct translation. That’s not how language works. That’s not how translation works.
But that doesn’t really seem to be what’s actually happening most of the time you accuse somebody of producing coded English. Just because somebody wants to explore the possibilities of grammar doesn’t mean that they’re doing so because they can’t think of a way to express a thought without some particular grammatical construction.
I’m saying this because I genuinely believe that even at early stages, you learn much more by trying to express the same idea in Klingon using different vocabulary and grammar choices than you learn if you pick up a screwdriver and do everything possible that you can think of to do with a screwdriver before picking up a hammer and doing everything you can possibly think of with a hammer, and then pick up a hack saw and do everything you can possibly think of with a hacksaw.
That’s not really how you learn to fix things with tools. It’s just dicking around.
I agree that experimenting with different ways to say something is a good learning tool. But I don’t think you’re giving people enough credit here. You’re talking to people who already do know how to recast a thought in multiple different ways using different vocabulary and grammar. What I see happening here is not “I want to use grammatical construct X in Klingon; how do I do that?”, but rather “would grammatical construct X be meaningful in Klingon?” There’s a world of difference between the two. Just because people asking questions like that didn’t show their work to prove that they can think of other ways to say the same thing doesn’t mean that they’re incapable of doing so. Yes, if we want to ensure that our meaning is understood by others we should stick to the grammar that Dr. Okrand has already described. But let us remember the words of TKD:
The grammatical sketch is intended to be an outline of Klingon grammar, not a complete description. Nevertheless, it should allow the reader to put Klingon words together in an acceptable manner.
Not a complete description. An acceptable manner. We don’t know what rules of Klingon grammar haven’t been described. We probably never will. What we can produce using only the rules that have been described is acceptable, but for all we know, native Klingon speakers often use double {-meH} or other such constructs and would find it weird, though acceptable, not to do so if the situation calls for it. Sure, if we choose to explore the undescribed and unknown areas of grammar, we run the risk of not being understood, of producing text that a native Klingon speaker would find unacceptable, or of violating an unknown rule that hasn’t been revealed yet. There are many reasons one ought to stick to what we know about Klingon. But doing so is not mutually exclusive with asking questions about what we don’t know. And maybe dicking around isn’t a useful learning strategy for you, but it works very well for many people. There’s nothing wrong with dicking around.
If it’s really true that those who argue already have the ability to say a given thing several different ways, then I recommend “Put up or shut up". Show us how good you are at doing this. My point is, people here argue in English about Klingon much more than 90% of the time. Rarely does anyone show evidence of actually knowing how to say things using the language. Maybe many people here CAN do that, but since they so rarely do, their purported skill remains invisible and unproven. I get tired of that. It’s deja vu all over again. And it pushes me to respond in kind. And I hate that. I hate doing THIS, RIGHT NOW. Krankor complained about this decades ago, and this is probably why he’s not here anymore. Anyone who actually loves the language will get fed up and leave. Why can’t we show any balance here? The list is supposed to be where we either write about the language in English or we write about anything using Klingon. So, where’s the Klingon? The ceaseless, pointless arguments would be much less annoying if, a little more often, somebody actually went to the effort to write something in Klingon, just to balance things out a little. The part of my brain that wants to read well written Klingon here is starving to friggin’ death, while the ceaseless rantings in English go on and on and on. And I will acknowledge that some beginners include a little Klingon here and there, typically while they fixate on a single grammatical construction which they want to beat to death in order to prove exactly how much abuse it could take before it died, but this is thin gruel for someone who would like to actually read and write the language now and then. Based on the evidence of the balance typical to the list, we have more people who are clueless about how to put three Klingon words together than we have those who will write philosophical treatises about Klingon in English. I’m one of the worst abusers. That’s part of what pisses me off so much. There’s so much here, in English, to respond to, I don’t have time to use the language. And if I never use the language, why am I here? charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 15, 2019, at 4:52 PM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
On May 15, 2019, at 14:36, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
My point is that Klingon is a language, not a code, and ideally, if you want to actually understand it, you should speak it like a language, instead of taking English text and figuring out how to perfectly encode it into the one and only true and correct method to produce the one and only truely correct translation. That’s not how language works. That’s not how translation works.
But that doesn’t really seem to be what’s actually happening most of the time you accuse somebody of producing coded English. Just because somebody wants to explore the possibilities of grammar doesn’t mean that they’re doing so because they can’t think of a way to express a thought without some particular grammatical construction.
I’m saying this because I genuinely believe that even at early stages, you learn much more by trying to express the same idea in Klingon using different vocabulary and grammar choices than you learn if you pick up a screwdriver and do everything possible that you can think of to do with a screwdriver before picking up a hammer and doing everything you can possibly think of with a hammer, and then pick up a hack saw and do everything you can possibly think of with a hacksaw.
That’s not really how you learn to fix things with tools. It’s just dicking around.
I agree that experimenting with different ways to say something is a good learning tool. But I don’t think you’re giving people enough credit here. You’re talking to people who already do know how to recast a thought in multiple different ways using different vocabulary and grammar. What I see happening here is not “I want to use grammatical construct X in Klingon; how do I do that?”, but rather “would grammatical construct X be meaningful in Klingon?” There’s a world of difference between the two. Just because people asking questions like that didn’t show their work to prove that they can think of other ways to say the same thing doesn’t mean that they’re incapable of doing so.
Yes, if we want to ensure that our meaning is understood by others we should stick to the grammar that Dr. Okrand has already described. But let us remember the words of TKD:
The grammatical sketch is intended to be an outline of Klingon grammar, not a complete description. Nevertheless, it should allow the reader to put Klingon words together in an acceptable manner.
Not a complete description. An acceptable manner. We don’t know what rules of Klingon grammar haven’t been described. We probably never will. What we can produce using only the rules that have been described is acceptable, but for all we know, native Klingon speakers often use double {-meH} or other such constructs and would find it weird, though acceptable, not to do so if the situation calls for it. Sure, if we choose to explore the undescribed and unknown areas of grammar, we run the risk of not being understood, of producing text that a native Klingon speaker would find unacceptable, or of violating an unknown rule that hasn’t been revealed yet. There are many reasons one ought to stick to what we know about Klingon. But doing so is not mutually exclusive with asking questions about what we don’t know.
And maybe dicking around isn’t a useful learning strategy for you, but it works very well for many people. There’s nothing wrong with dicking around. _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On May 15, 2019, at 16:23, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
I’m one of the worst abusers. That’s part of what pisses me off so much. There’s so much here, in English, to respond to, I don’t have time to use the language.
vaj qaqaD: pab rIchlu'DI', vay' DaQIj DaneHchugh, tlhIngan Hol yIlo'. DIvI' Hol lo'mo' neH vay' jangmeH DIvI' Hol lo'nISbe'lu'. tlhIngan Hol yajchu' ghelwI'pu' HochHom. chaq Dumer ngoDvam. 'ej yajbe'chugh, chaq QInlIj yajchoH 'e' nIDtaHvIS Hol ghoj. chaq jatlh «jIyajbe'» 'ej DamughlaH qoj mughlaH latlh. Qap Hoch.
On May 15, 2019, at 5:36 PM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote: vas qaqaD: pab rIchlu'DI', vay' DaQIj DaneHchugh, tlhIngan Hol yIlo'.
charghwI''e' DaqaDmo' pe'vIl jIHaghqu'. ghomvam qun tIQ DaSovbe'law'. charghwI': qaDvam Dalajchugh, 'ej HoD Qanqor Dup DachIwqangchugh SoH, latlhpu'vaD mu'meylIj vImughqang jIH. -- ghunchu'wI'
DaH choHaghmoHchu’, jupwI’. Qu’wIj tIQ DanIHlaw’. Qanqor laH Doj law’ laHwIj Doj puS. laH’a’ vIHutlh, ‘ach laHwIj vIDubmoH vIneHqu’chugh, Qanqor ‘Ip vIyInqa’nISmoH. wa’ jar... charghwI’ Sent from my iPad
On May 15, 2019, at 5:48 PM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
On May 15, 2019, at 5:36 PM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote: vas qaqaD: pab rIchlu'DI', vay' DaQIj DaneHchugh, tlhIngan Hol yIlo'.
charghwI''e' DaqaDmo' pe'vIl jIHaghqu'. ghomvam qun tIQ DaSovbe'law'.
charghwI': qaDvam Dalajchugh, 'ej HoD Qanqor Dup DachIwqangchugh SoH, latlhpu'vaD mu'meylIj vImughqang jIH.
-- ghunchu'wI' _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
charghwI’, yIlaDchu’.
On May 14, 2019, at 20:29, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com> wrote:
My sense (admitting my inexperience) is that the {‘ej} use should be avoided for statements of a causal relationship (like mayqel’s, if my interpretation of his statement is correct). As you posit, there are more clear ways of indicating the relationship between the process, the training, and the thinning; however, (and ironically) a nested -meH statement would end up being more compact in this case; and I feel that it would signal the causal link more strongly.
{QangvaD langmoHmeH qeqmeH mIw vInab} — (invalid/questionable construction) “For the chancellor I devised a process for training for thinning.” Or more naturally: “I devised a thinning training process for the chancellor.”
{langmeH Qang qeqnIS, ghaHvaD qeqmeH mIw vInab} — “For the chancellor to be thin, he needs to train. I’ve devised a process for training for him.”
{put up or shut up} Dajatlh, ‘a wejHa’ wIta’pu’. Datu’be’ba’. —jevreH
participants (7)
-
Alan Anderson -
Daniel Dadap -
Jeffrey Clark -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin