jot = be calm jotwI' = someone who is calm Qup = young QupwI' = someone who is young law' = be numerous, be many law'wI'pu' = those who are many So, we could say: Har law'wI'pu' many believe *Something* tells me that it can't be correct But that *something* can't figure out the why ~ gho'at
On 2/21/2019 12:38 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
jot = be calm jotwI' = someone who is calm
Qup = young QupwI' = someone who is young
law' = be numerous, be many law'wI'pu' = those who are many
So, we could say: Har law'wI'pu' many believe
*Something* tells me that it can't be correct But that*something* can't figure out the why
*law'* means /be many,/ so *law'wI'* means /one who is many.../ whatever that means. Now, there may be a "yeah, but you get it anyway" factor involved here, but looking strictly at the meanings of the pieces, I don't think *law'wI'pu'* means /many of them/ or /group that consists of many;/ I think it means /group of ones who are each many. /Again, whatever that means. But if Okrand were to come out and say that *law'wI'pu'* means /those who are many,/ I wouldn't have any trouble believing him. Better to play it safe for now and just say *ghot law'*/many people./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:55 PM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
*law'* means *be many,* so *law'wI'* means *one who is many...*
The rigidity of this translation is what makes it nonsensical. For anything countable, the meaning of *law'* makes *law'wI'* inherently plural. It could be translated as "the many," just as *qanwI'* can be translated "the old." As a substitute for a mass noun, *law'wI'* could be translated "much." None of which means Klingons actually use the term *law'wI'*, but even if they don't, I expect they'd get your meaning. ~mIp'av <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On 2/21/2019 1:37 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:55 PM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
*law'* means /be many,/ so *law'wI'* means /one who is many.../
The rigidity of this translation is what makes it nonsensical. For anything countable, the meaning of *law'* makes *law'wI'* inherently plural. It could be translated as "the many," just as *qanwI'* can be translated "the old." As a substitute for a mass noun, *law'wI'* could be translated "much." None of which means Klingons actually use the term *law'wI'*, but even if they don't, I expect they'd get your meaning.
Exactly what I said: "yeah, but you get it anyway." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
law’wI’ could easily be the Klingon term for gestalt beings and/or entities with a collective consciousness. We don’t have much in the way of common terms for those since they are not something we encounter regularly, but they are decidedly more common in Trek. —jevreH Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 21, 2019, at 13:49, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 2/21/2019 1:37 PM, Ed Bailey wrote: On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:55 PM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
law' means be many, so law'wI' means one who is many...
The rigidity of this translation is what makes it nonsensical. For anything countable, the meaning of law' makes law'wI' inherently plural. It could be translated as "the many," just as qanwI' can be translated "the old." As a substitute for a mass noun, law'wI' could be translated "much." None of which means Klingons actually use the term law'wI', but even if they don't, I expect they'd get your meaning. Exactly what I said: "yeah, but you get it anyway." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 2/21/2019 2:06 PM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
law’wI’ could easily be the Klingon term for gestalt beings and/or entities with a collective consciousness. We don’t have much in the way of common terms for those since they are not something we encounter regularly, but they are decidedly more common in Trek.
Yes, but now we're reaching for science-fiction to explain what a word means, and the question is whether *law'wI'pu'* means simply /the many./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 14:19:54 -0500 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 2/21/2019 2:06 PM, Jeffrey Clark wrote:
law’wI’ could easily be the Klingon term for gestalt beings and/or entities with a collective consciousness. We don’t have much in the way of common terms for those since they are not something we encounter regularly, but they are decidedly more common in Trek.
Yes, but now we're reaching for science-fiction to explain what a word means, and the question is whether *law'wI'pu'* means simply /the many./
People with multiple personalities? Dissociative identity disorder. - DloraH
OTOH I can see {law’wI’pu’} “the many” -- using the {-pu’} plural suffix – for the Marxist jargon “the masses”. -- Voragh From: SuStel On 2/21/2019 1:37 PM, Ed Bailey wrote: On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:55 PM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name<mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote: law' means be many, so law'wI' means one who is many... The rigidity of this translation is what makes it nonsensical. For anything countable, the meaning of law' makes law'wI' inherently plural. It could be translated as "the many," just as qanwI' can be translated "the old." Exactly what I said: "yeah, but you get it anyway."
On 2/21/2019 2:12 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
OTOH I can see {law’wI’pu’} “the many” -- using the {-pu’} plural suffix – for the Marxist jargon “the masses”.
I was thinking about mass nouns as well. *Huch law' vIghaj. cha' Doj tu'lu'. law' Dojvam Huch. law'wI' Doj 'oH. puS Dojvam Huch. puSwI' Doj 'oH.* I think this makes sense. Of course, you're not likely to put *-pu'* on a mass noun. And /masses/ is the plural of /mass,/ and a mass (of people) isn't a being capable of using language, so it won't get *-pu'.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 2/21/2019 1:37 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:
It could be translated as "the many," just as *qanwI'* can be translated "the old."
Actually, I want to counter this. *qanwI'* can be translated /the old/ only in the sense that plural suffixes are optional in Klingon, and *qanwI'pu'* means /the old./ Assuming no dropped plural suffix, *qanwI'* only means /old one./ TKD is fairly clear on the meaning of *-wI',* and it's always explained as /thing which does/ or /one who does,/ and even once as /thing which is/ (we have since gotten canon for /one who is/). Nowhere is it explained as /things which do//, //those who do, things which are/ or /those who are./ I agree that it's a fine point, but I don't think it's rigid so much as careful not to stray beyond what we know *-wI'* does. Again, I'm not saying that the language is necessarily this specific, just that the evidence we actually have seems to point this way. Okrand could easily clarify with, "Oh, sure, *law'wI'pu'* means /the many,/" and there'd be no problem. You just can't get there with what we have now without making an assumption. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I’m totally with SuStel on this one. {-wI’} is a thing which does the verb or one who does the verb. {law’wI’pu’}, if it makes any sense at all, would be “ones capable of using language who are each many”…, which doesn’t really make sense to me. You are working too hard to make a special word. SuStel has already offered appropriate terms for “many people”. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Feb 21, 2019, at 2:03 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 2/21/2019 1:37 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:
It could be translated as "the many," just as qanwI' can be translated "the old." Actually, I want to counter this. qanwI' can be translated the old only in the sense that plural suffixes are optional in Klingon, and qanwI'pu' means the old. Assuming no dropped plural suffix, qanwI' only means old one.
TKD is fairly clear on the meaning of -wI', and it's always explained as thing which does or one who does, and even once as thing which is (we have since gotten canon for one who is). Nowhere is it explained as things which do, those who do, things which are or those who are.
I agree that it's a fine point, but I don't think it's rigid so much as careful not to stray beyond what we know -wI' does.
Again, I'm not saying that the language is necessarily this specific, just that the evidence we actually have seems to point this way. Okrand could easily clarify with, "Oh, sure, law'wI'pu' means the many," and there'd be no problem. You just can't get there with what we have now without making an assumption.
-- 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
I lost the original to message to quote it, but mayqel said he felt strange using {law'wI'}. The reason is that {law'wI'pu'} does not mean "the many" but the "ones who are many". Again: it does not mean "those multiple people who are lots of single persons altogether" but it means "those people of which each single one is many" which makes no sense. So, IMHO, {law'wI'} "thing/person which is many" makes no sense at all. Unless, maybe, in situations where the Borg queen said "I am the one who is many", but that's a very unusual situation, even in English. If I'd use {law'wI'pu'} in a sentence, it sounds like "the manyers" in English. ....but this is not English ... Still, this is an interesting question that cannot be answered entirely, as Maltz may tell us other things about that. What about {mapuS} or {malaw'}? Isn't that "we are many"? Based on this phrase {Doq SuvwI'pu'; DoqwI'pu' vIlegh.} the following should be acceptable too: {law' SuvwI'pu'; law'wI'pu' vIlegh.} Okay, now I'm eating my own statement... :-/ -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Many
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 09:40, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
So, IMHO, {law'wI'} "thing/person which is many" makes no sense at all.
Unless, maybe, in situations where the Borg queen said "I am the one who is many", but that's a very unusual situation, even in English. [...] Still, this is an interesting question that cannot be answered entirely, as Maltz may tell us other things about that. What about {mapuS} or {malaw'}? Isn't that "we are many"?
As I alluded to earlier: law'wI' 'oH pongwIj'e', malaw'mo'. (Mark 5:9) -- De'vID
De'vID:
As I alluded to earlier:
law'wI' 'oH pongwIj'e', malaw'mo'. (Mark
5:9)
I don't agree that law'wI' means legion, since legion doesn't mean "one who is many". If I was to translate this line, I would first try to find how many soldiers made up a roman legion, and then say something like.. But I won't go on suggesting anything, because, poHwIj qotlhbe'bej paqvam quvHa'. ~ gho'at qIj
Okay, during coffee intake (perhaps before enough of it kicked in), a lightening-like idea hit me for using {law’wI’pu’}. Yes, it’s weird: reH tlhIngan yoH law’, tera’ngan yoH puS. SuvDI’, reH puSwI’pu' jey law’wI’pu’ net Sov. As further evidence, I suggest that {puSwI’} is the etymological root of an English derogatory term that sounds similar. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Feb 22, 2019, at 3:40 AM, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
I lost the original to message to quote it, but mayqel said he felt strange using {law'wI'}.
The reason is that {law'wI'pu'} does not mean "the many" but the "ones who are many". Again: it does not mean "those multiple people who are lots of single persons altogether" but it means "those people of which each single one is many" which makes no sense.
So, IMHO, {law'wI'} "thing/person which is many" makes no sense at all.
Unless, maybe, in situations where the Borg queen said "I am the one who is many", but that's a very unusual situation, even in English.
If I'd use {law'wI'pu'} in a sentence, it sounds like "the manyers" in English.
....but this is not English ...
Still, this is an interesting question that cannot be answered entirely, as Maltz may tell us other things about that. What about {mapuS} or {malaw'}? Isn't that "we are many"?
Based on this phrase {Doq SuvwI'pu'; DoqwI'pu' vIlegh.} the following should be acceptable too: {law' SuvwI'pu'; law'wI'pu' vIlegh.}
Okay, now I'm eating my own statement... :-/
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Many _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
charghwI':
reH tlhIngan yoH law’, tera’ngan yoH puS.
SuvDI’, reH puSwI’pu' jey law’wI’pu’ net
Sov.
So, you *do* accept that law'wI'pu' can indeed mean "the many" ? charghwI':
As further evidence, I suggest that
{puSwI’} is the etymological root of an
English derogatory term that sounds
similar.
What do you mean by that ? ~ capricorn qIj
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 14:51, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
charghwI':
reH tlhIngan yoH law’, tera’ngan yoH puS.
SuvDI’, reH puSwI’pu' jey law’wI’pu’ net
Sov.
So, you *do* accept that law'wI'pu' can indeed mean "the many" ?
Not really. He's using the {law'} in {law'wI'} to refer back to the {law'} in the {law'}/{puS} construction.
charghwI':
As further evidence, I suggest that
{puSwI’} is the etymological root of an
English derogatory term that sounds
similar.
What do you mean by that ?
A weakling or coward is often called a pusi...llanimous person in English. -- De'vID
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 2:03 PM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 2/21/2019 1:37 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:
It could be translated as "the many," just as *qanwI'* can be translated "the old."
Actually, I want to counter this. *qanwI'* can be translated *the old* only in the sense that plural suffixes are optional in Klingon, and *qanwI'pu'* means *the old.* Assuming no dropped plural suffix, *qanwI'* only means *old one.*
Even *qanwI'* singular could be translated as *the old*, if the speaker is generalizing. Do' DIvI' Hol wa' qech nelbe' tlhIngan ngIq mu'. nel net jalchugh, Dalqu'choH tlhIngan Hol.
TKD is fairly clear on the meaning of *-wI',* and it's always explained as *thing which does* or *one who does,* and even once as *thing which is* (we have since gotten canon for *one who is*). Nowhere is it explained as *things which do**, **those who do, things which are* or *those who are.*
I agree that it's a fine point, but I don't think it's rigid so much as careful not to stray beyond what we know *-wI'* does.
Again, I'm not saying that the language is necessarily this specific, just that the evidence we actually have seems to point this way. Okrand could easily clarify with, "Oh, sure, *law'wI'pu'* means *the many,*" and there'd be no problem. You just can't get there with what we have now without making an assumption.
I'm with you on disliking *law'wI'pu'*, but only because *law'* is inherently plural when applied to count nouns. It grates on my ear for the same reason **ngopmey* would. Simply because Okrand has described* the action of *-wI'* using the singular nouns *one* and *thing* does not mean he intended this syntactic marker to be incompatible with inherently plural verbs. By the same token, one could take his exact words as evidence that a verb+*-wI'* cannot refer to mass noun, since these are never referred to as *one* or *thing*. I do not expect he'd object to the language of TKD 3.2.2 being understood as *that which does/**is*. * I think "describe" is a more accurate term than "define" for how Okrand presents the Klingon language, with all that that implies. ~mIp'av <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
participants (10)
-
De'vID -
DloraH -
Ed Bailey -
Jeffrey Clark -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
mayqel qunenoS
-
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin