I've just been asked this by a beginner. I know what I could answer, but I wondered if there is a canon explanation, and also what your answers might be. It has certainly been asked before: Why is it {tlhIngan maH} and not {tlhInganpu' maH}? -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/BeginnersQuestions
I always understood tlhIngan maH, as "we are klingon" i.e. members of the klingon species, instead of "we are klingons", as in "klingon individuals". ~ m. qunen'oS
... and now I am confused. I learned that plural ending is optional in Klingon... So I would expect it would be used basically for emphasis or at least disambiguation, in common usage. And {tlhIngan maH} is not ambiguous, as {maH} clearly indicates that the subject is plural. On the other hand, I noticed the Duolingo course, especially, always uses plural suffixes. Luciano On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 6:53 AM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I always understood tlhIngan maH, as "we are klingon" i.e. members of the klingon species, instead of "we are klingons", as in "klingon individuals".
~ m. qunen'oS _______________________________________________ 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
I've always been of Luciano's opinion. Note that an unmarked plural predicate with {maH} is also seen in: yaS maH We are officers. (TKD) On the other hand ... wo' tay' tlhInganpu' maH! We are U.K. Klingons! (RT) -----Original Message----- From: Luciano Montanaro
I learned that plural ending is optional in Klingon... So I would expect it would be used basically for emphasis or at least disambiguation, in common usage. And {tlhIngan maH} is not ambiguous, as {maH} clearly indicates that the subject is plural.
On the other hand, I noticed the Duolingo course, especially, always uses plural suffixes.
mayqel wrote:
I always understood tlhIngan maH, as "we are Klingon" i.e. members of the Klingon species, instead of "we are Klingons", as in "Klingon individuals".
I found three more examples in the paq'batlh: tlhIngan SoH tlhIngan maH For you are Klingon, we are Klingon. (PB) reH tlhIngan tlhIH 'e' yIqaw pewuv'egh Remember forever that you are Klingons, You need no one but yourselves! (PB) wuv'eghlaH boQ lupoQbe' tlhIngan chaH [translation unavailable] (PB) ... all with {tlhIngan} and AFAIK only {tlhIngan}. As kechpaja mentioned, {tlhIngan maH/tlhIH/chaH} may well be a frozen expression turned into a slogan/battle cry. -- Voragh -----Original Message----- From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of Steven Boozer Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 8:26 AM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] tlhIngan maH I've always been of Luciano's opinion. Note that an unmarked plural predicate with {maH} is also seen in: yaS maH We are officers. (TKD) On the other hand ... wo' tay' tlhInganpu' maH! We are U.K. Klingons! (RT) -----Original Message----- From: Luciano Montanaro
I learned that plural ending is optional in Klingon... So I would expect it would be used basically for emphasis or at least disambiguation, in common usage. And {tlhIngan maH} is not ambiguous, as {maH} clearly indicates that the subject is plural.
On the other hand, I noticed the Duolingo course, especially, always uses plural suffixes.
mayqel wrote:
I always understood tlhIngan maH, as "we are Klingon" i.e. members of the Klingon species, instead of "we are Klingons", as in "Klingon individuals".
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Am 19.06.2019 um 05:05 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
this:
Sa'HutDu' qungmey chaH..
should be:
Sa'HutDu' qungDu' chaH..
I wouldn't be so sure with this. Although it refers to a body part, it's still just a hole; it's not a body part.... Okay, you are right - it IS a body part, somehow. But still something tells me that the plural of {qung} is {qungmey}. Besides, I would suggest {Sa'Hut qungmey} having the first word in singular. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 08:00 Lieven L. Litaer, <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 19.06.2019 um 05:05 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
this:
Sa'HutDu' qungmey chaH..
should be:
Sa'HutDu' qungDu' chaH..
I wouldn't be so sure with this. Although it refers to a body part, it's still just a hole; it's not a body part.... Okay, you are right - it IS a body part, somehow.
tlhonDu' -- De'vID
On 6/19/2019 8:08 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
'a, lurSa' be'etor je Sa'Hut qung vItogh 'e' vImaS..
QInvam vIlaDDI' nIQ vISoptaH. DaH jIghungbe'choHpu'. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 at 12:06, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
pejal..
matlh, yIjatlh ! qung 'ar ghaj Sa'HutlIj ?
cha' 'InSepDu' ghajlaw' wa' tlhIngan loD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2S6facaFFI -- De'vID
On Jun 19, 2019, at 08:11, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 at 12:06, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote: pejal..
matlh, yIjatlh ! qung 'ar ghaj Sa'HutlIj ?
cha' 'InSepDu' ghajlaw' wa' tlhIngan loD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2S6facaFFI
DIch wIghajchu''a'? chaq cha' turmIq vujmeH 'ochHom neH ghaj. DISqa'vI'rIy tlhIngan porghQeD ngoDmeyvam tIqel: * loS tlhonDu' ghaj wa' tlhIngan ghIch. wa' ghIch ghaj wa' tlhIngan. * cha' ghogh 'och, HughDu' ghap ghaj wa' tlhIngan mong. wa' mong ghaj wa' tlhIngan.
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 at 08:53, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I always understood tlhIngan maH, as "we are klingon" i.e. members of the klingon species, instead of "we are klingons", as in "klingon individuals".
{tlhIngan tIgh: SuvwI' DevmeH paq}Daq vIttlegh wa'DIch 'oH mu'tlheghvam'e'. mugh'meH, "We are Klingons!" qonpu' Okrand. -- De'vID
There may be an official canonical explanation of some sort, but as far as I'm concerned there isn't any need to hunt for anything particularly outlandish. I would say that this is what's happening: {tlhIngan maH} and {tlhInganpu' maH} are both perfectly grammatical ways of answering the question {'Iv tlhIH?} or {nuq 'oH Seghraj?}. Since there's no point in wasting syllables on a plural suffix that doesn't actually add to the meaning of the sentence, it makes sense that speakers would probably be more likely to say {tlhIngan maH} rather than {tlhInganpu' maH}, although you'd probably hear the latter as well. However, in languages, it's normal for common phrases to become "frozen" over time, so that saying them differently would sound strange and, although theoretically having the same literal meaning, would be missing an additional level of meaning that the frozen expression has acquired. This, I suspect, is what has happened with {tlhIngan maH} when used as a slogan — you wouldn't be speaking ungrammatically if you said {tlhInganpu' maH}, but you also wouldn't be using the same slogan, in the same way that a Barack Obama supporter probably wouldn't shout "yes we are able!". On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 07:36:33AM +0200, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
I've just been asked this by a beginner. I know what I could answer, but I wondered if there is a canon explanation, and also what your answers might be. It has certainly been asked before:
Why is it {tlhIngan maH} and not {tlhInganpu' maH}?
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/BeginnersQuestions _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
ghItlhpu' Quvar, jatlh:
I've just been asked this by a beginner. I know what I could answer, but I wondered if there is a canon explanation, and also what your answers might be. It has certainly been asked before: Why is it {tlhIngan maH} and not {tlhInganpu' maH}?
I don't think there's a canon explanation, but slogans tend to work better when they're more concise (Australia's political landscape is now at a point where the term "three word slogan" has become a term of political mockery), and no doubt Klingons think that way too. While tlhInganpu' maH is also in principle fine for "we are Klingons" - for a canon instance, note wo' tay' tlhInganpu' maH "we are UK Klingons!" (Radio Times) - I imagine it's just that the chant-like nature of the phrase lends itself to maximum brevity. QeS 'utlh
jIH:
I always understood tlhIngan maH, as "we are klingon" i.e. members of the klingon species, instead of "we are klingons", as in "klingon individuals".
I didn't mean I understand "we are an individual member of the klingon race". I meant that the "feel" I get from it, is that by saying {tlhIngan maH} this expresses more the "members (plural) of the klingon race", as opposed to "we are klingons (i.e. some individual a$$*QemjIq*pu', who happen to be here and drink coffee). Of course, this just the way I *feel* this phrase, which since it isn't holy Ca'Non, is no more important, than any klingon sentence of the guy next door. ~ m. qunen'oS
participants (9)
-
Daniel Dadap -
De'vID -
kechpaja＠kechpaja.com -
Lieven L. Litaer -
Luciano Montanaro -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Rhona Fenwick -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel