Can someone tell me, if the following scenario/sequence of events is possible ? 1. Subtitles are to be written for a star trek movie/series/episode/whatever.. Or klingon sentences are to be written for skybox cards/monopoly/or anything else.. 2. 'oqranD is given the english subtitles/sentences.. 3. He gives them back in klingon.. 4. And for whatever reasons, the english lines change AFTER okrand has done the translation. 5. So, we have the original klingon sentences, but with english translations which 'oqranD didn't have in mind while he was translating. And, finally, we become the a-holes, who worship as holy Ca'NoN, pairs of sentences (klingon-english), where the english ones were changed after 'oqranD had translated.. Can someone, put my mind at ease, telling me that this cannot be happening ? ~ m. qunen'oS I find impurities in ca'non disturbing
This has happened more than once in the movies, though Okrand consistently went back and altered the grammar and vocabulary to make the movie line make sense. This is the source of the three different plural suffixes, and why {-pu’} is both a noun and verb suffix. It’s also why we have aspect and not tense, and why you can’t use Type 7 on the second verb in SAO. The entire Klingon scene in the beginning of ST1 was done before Okrand was hired, but he went back and invented Clipped Klingon so that both the grammar and vocabulary there were acceptable. There were extra words inserted into valQrIs lines to keep her lips moving because her lines were shot in English and later dubbed in as Klingon, so her Klingon doesn’t exactly match the subtitles, though it’s close enough. This is part of the brilliance we admire in Okrand. He has worked really hard to make Klingon work, despite the movie-making process, which mungs things up. charghwI’ Sent from my iPad
On Apr 2, 2019, at 6:33 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Can someone tell me, if the following scenario/sequence of events is possible ?
1. Subtitles are to be written for a star trek movie/series/episode/whatever.. Or klingon sentences are to be written for skybox cards/monopoly/or anything else..
2. 'oqranD is given the english subtitles/sentences..
3. He gives them back in klingon..
4. And for whatever reasons, the english lines change AFTER okrand has done the translation.
5. So, we have the original klingon sentences, but with english translations which 'oqranD didn't have in mind while he was translating.
And, finally, we become the a-holes, who worship as holy Ca'NoN, pairs of sentences (klingon-english), where the english ones were changed after 'oqranD had translated..
Can someone, put my mind at ease, telling me that this cannot be happening ?
~ m. qunen'oS I find impurities in ca'non disturbing _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> schrieb am Di., 2. Apr. 2019, 12:34:
Can someone tell me, if the following scenario/sequence of events is possible ?
Not only is it possible, but it's very common for vocabulary revealed as the result of their use in a movie or show. -- De'vID
On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 15:47, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> schrieb am Di., 2. Apr. 2019, 12:34:
Can someone tell me, if the following scenario/sequence of events is possible ?
Not only is it possible, but it's very common for vocabulary revealed as the result of their use in a movie or show.
Furthermore: Okrand is much less concerned about the purity of canon, and being in charge of creating it, than the rest of us. Someone wrote an essay on Klingon musical theory extending what Okrand wrote, and Okrand was happy to endorse it as how Klingons do things. I believe it's the same one that's now in the introduction to the paq'batlh. I've discussed the "higher mathematics" hinted at in TKD (using 3-adic system) with him, and he's suggested I write it up. He's not a mathematician, but as a linguist he knows the sort of numbering system which is possible outside of base-10. It's both outside of his field of expertise and probably not a good use of his time to describe music theory or mathematics beyond the basics, but he's heavily hinted at the systems he thinks Klingon has and is happy for other people to fill out the details. A suggestion he's made for {boQwI'} is to add more entries for "derived" verbs. TKD has a bunch of these like an entry {QeymoH} "tighten" which is derived from {Qey} "be tight". He added common ones for convenience, but he didn't add all possible {-moH} derivatives of "be" verbs because it would've added a lot of redundant entries and increased the length of the book. But for an app, that's less of an issue, and he likes the feature that (as an example) if he searched for "enlarge" and forgot that there's a word {tIn} "be big", he would still get the correct result. In other words, he doesn't mind people putting words into their Klingon word lists which are derived rather than exactly as they appear in canon. This was how {jotlhHa'} became "canon", because he was going through someone's word list and that person had derived {jotlhHa'} from {jotlh}. He's perfectly fine if people add {-moH} and {-Ha'} verbs to their word lists, if their derivation from the root makes sense. In fact, because he himself isn't obsessed with collecting every Klingon word or sentence he's ever written (exactly as he wrote it, no more, no less), or is made up for a show or book by someone else, he sometimes forgets when he's used a word a particular way or has told someone (e.g., K.R.A. DeCandido, or a random fan he meets at an event) that a word can be used in a particular way. He actually enjoys finding out about how fans have expressed things which extend the given vocabulary, and he doesn't want to contradict other people whenever possible. In other words, he's perfectly fine with other people extending Klingon "canon", if their extension basically respects the rules he's set up. So I wouldn't worry too much about the "purity" of canon. I mean, it's important to keep track of whether Okrand wrote something or not, for record-keeping and historical purposes, but please don't worship pairs of Klingon-English sentences like they're holy. -- De'vID
Am 02.04.2019 um 16:50 schrieb Daniel Dadap:
And now, let us all take a moment to meditate together on {qama'pu' jonta' neH}…
You can do that here: http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/UnintentionalVocabulary -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de
Am 02.04.2019 um 16:36 schrieb De'vID:
record-keeping and historical purposes, but please don't worship pairs of Klingon-English sentences like they're holy.
THanks for that. It's very interesting, and it confirms something else. While planning the Miniature thing, I talked to Okrand about the dictionary and the grammar. Also here, he repeated that TKD is way from being complete. He added that if he omitted something, it does not mean that it doesn't exist at all. He also repeated that - what he even wrote in his introduction - although it sometimes says "always" or "never", even that should not be takes as holy. It happens very often that a situation occurs which he did not think about. So if speakers find a solution that "somehow" makes sense and is understandable, then they should use it, instead of saying it's not possible to do so, or we don't know how to. Even breaking rules might be acceptable - think of english "ain't not" and so on. The language is alive, and lives from being used. Don't take TKD too strictly as 100% set in stone. It's only a rough introduction, not a final law. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Canon
Re-read the Introduction to TKD instead of obsessing about the rules presented in the body of the text. Okrand touches on many of these issues there. For example: It should be remembered that even though the rules say "always" and "never," when Klingon is actually spoken these rules are sometimes broken. What the rules represent, in other words, is what Klingon grammarians agree on as the "best" Klingon. and: 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... It is not possible, in a brief guide such as this, to describe the grammar of Klingon completely. What follows is only a sketch or outline of Klingon grammar. Although a good many of the fine points are not covered, the sketch will allow the student of Klingon to figure out what a Klingon is saying and to respond in an intelligible, though somewhat brutish, manner. Most Klingons will never know the difference. -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons ------------------------------Original Message------------------------------ From: Lieven L. Litaer Am 02.04.2019 um 16:36 schrieb De'vID:
record-keeping and historical purposes, but please don't worship pairs of Klingon-English sentences like they're holy.
It happens very often that a situation occurs which he did not think about. So if speakers find a solution that "somehow" makes sense and is understandable, then they should use it, instead of saying it's not possible to do so, or we don't know how to. Even breaking rules might be acceptable - think of english "ain't not" and so on. The language is alive, and lives from being used. Don't take TKD too strictly as 100% set in stone. It's only a rough introduction, not a final law.
Awwwwriiiiiight! So, I can say {tlhIngan Hol’e’ be’nalwI’ vIghojmoH} because, even though it doesn’t follow the formula given us ({be’nalwI’vaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH}), it obviously makes sense to anyone who speaks Klingon, right? The two objects of {ghojmoH} are the beneficiary and the topic. You can leave either unmarked if there is only one showing, but if both are there, you can’t leave both unmarked. He stylistically prefers to mark the beneficiary, but it should be fine for me to prefer to mark the topic. In fact, it should be okay to say {tlhIngan Hol’e’ be’nalwI’vaD jIghojmoH.} [Let the fireworks begin.] charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Apr 2, 2019, at 10:53 AM, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 02.04.2019 um 16:36 schrieb De'vID:
record-keeping and historical purposes, but please don't worship pairs of Klingon-English sentences like they're holy.
THanks for that. It's very interesting, and it confirms something else. While planning the Miniature thing, I talked to Okrand about the dictionary and the grammar. Also here, he repeated that TKD is way from being complete. He added that if he omitted something, it does not mean that it doesn't exist at all. He also repeated that - what he even wrote in his introduction - although it sometimes says "always" or "never", even that should not be takes as holy. It happens very often that a situation occurs which he did not think about. So if speakers find a solution that "somehow" makes sense and is understandable, then they should use it, instead of saying it's not possible to do so, or we don't know how to. Even breaking rules might be acceptable - think of english "ain't not" and so on.
The language is alive, and lives from being used. Don't take TKD too strictly as 100% set in stone. It's only a rough introduction, not a final law.
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Canon _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Am 03.04.2019 um 14:25 schrieb Will Martin:
Awwwwriiiiiight!
hehee
So, I can say {tlhIngan Hol’e’ be’nalwI’ vIghojmoH} because, even though it doesn’t follow the formula given us ({be’nalwI’vaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH}), it obviously makes sense to anyone who speaks Klingon, right?
I'm not saying it's correct, but (unless there's a known fact) I'm not saying it's wrong either.
The two objects of {ghojmoH} are the beneficiary and the topic.
That -moH-problem keeps coming back all the time.
In fact, it should be okay to say {tlhIngan Hol’e’ be’nalwI’vaD jIghojmoH.}
That is an interesting theory.
[Let the fireworks begin.]
hahaha. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Type4VerbSuffixes
Hooray! It's now perfectly fine to say *bIvoqbe' 'ej muSuj 'e'!* Because Okrand said breaking rules is acceptable, and we all KNOW what the sentence means! And now we can say *qatlh ghaH DaHoHpu' 'e' vISov*/I know why you killed him,/ because c'mon, we all KNOW what it means. And OF COURSE we can say *chenmoH Da'oy' jIH,*//because it's completely obviously what that means. Anyone who couldn't understand THAT one has got to be brain-damaged. (Or maybe, just maybe, he just means that we should look at Klingon samples in their proper contexts, that what he writes shouldn't be analyzed as perfect and completely normative text. A Skybox card is just a Skybox card, not an Officially Sanctioned Representative of Klingon Grammar.) On 4/3/2019 8:25 AM, Will Martin wrote:
Awwwwriiiiiight!
So, I can say {tlhIngan Hol’e’ be’nalwI’ vIghojmoH} because, even though it doesn’t follow the formula given us ({be’nalwI’vaD tlhIngan Hol vIghojmoH}), it obviously makes sense to anyone who speaks Klingon, right?
The two objects of {ghojmoH} are the beneficiary and the topic. You can leave either unmarked if there is only one showing, but if both are there, you can’t leave both unmarked. He stylistically prefers to mark the beneficiary, but it should be fine for me to prefer to mark the topic. In fact, it should be okay to say {tlhIngan Hol’e’ be’nalwI’vaD jIghojmoH.}
[Let the fireworks begin.]
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Apr 2, 2019, at 10:53 AM, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de <mailto:levinius@gmx.de>> wrote:
Am 02.04.2019 um 16:36 schrieb De'vID:
record-keeping and historical purposes, but please don't worship pairs of Klingon-English sentences like they're holy.
THanks for that. It's very interesting, and it confirms something else. While planning the Miniature thing, I talked to Okrand about the dictionary and the grammar. Also here, he repeated that TKD is way from being complete. He added that if he omitted something, it does not mean that it doesn't exist at all. He also repeated that - what he even wrote in his introduction - although it sometimes says "always" or "never", even that should not be takes as holy. It happens very often that a situation occurs which he did not think about. So if speakers find a solution that "somehow" makes sense and is understandable, then they should use it, instead of saying it's not possible to do so, or we don't know how to. Even breaking rules might be acceptable - think of english "ain't not" and so on.
The language is alive, and lives from being used. Don't take TKD too strictly as 100% set in stone. It's only a rough introduction, not a final law.
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Canon _______________________________________________ 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
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 03.04.2019 um 15:21 schrieb SuStel:
Hooray! It's now perfectly fine to say *bIvoqbe' 'ej muSuj 'e'!* Because Okrand said breaking rules is acceptable, and we all KNOW what the sentence means!
I'm not surprised that you have to exaggerate again. He did NOT say that breaking rules is acceptable. He said that if you follow the rules, you can't do anything wrong. But if you do something which does not have a rule, it does not mean that it's wrong.
And now we can say *qatlh ghaH DaHoHpu' 'e' vISov*/I know why you killed him,/ because c'mon, we all KNOW what it means.
That's not what I was saying. We also all know what {jIH bang SoH} is supposed to mean, but it's surely not acceptable.
And OF COURSE we can say *chenmoH Da'oy' jIH,*//because it's completely obviously what that means. Anyone who couldn't understand THAT one has got to be brain-damaged.
Your silly remark doesn't stop me from admitting that I really have no idea was it could mean.
(Or maybe, just maybe, he just means that we should look at Klingon samples in their proper contexts, that what he writes shouldn't be analyzed as perfect and completely normative text. A Skybox card is just a Skybox card, not an Officially Sanctioned Representative of Klingon Grammar.)
Indeed. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de
On 4/3/2019 9:46 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 03.04.2019 um 15:21 schrieb SuStel:
Hooray! It's now perfectly fine to say *bIvoqbe' 'ej muSuj 'e'!* Because Okrand said breaking rules is acceptable, and we all KNOW what the sentence means!
I'm not surprised that you have to exaggerate again.
I'm not surprised that you don't recognize sarcasm. My point, in case you missed it, is that Okrand's remarks should not be viewed as a slippery slope.
And OF COURSE we can say *chenmoH Da'oy' jIH,*//because it's completely obviously what that means. Anyone who couldn't understand THAT one has got to be brain-damaged.
Your silly remark doesn't stop me from admitting that I really have no idea was it could mean.
Thank you for demonstrating my point. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 03.04.2019 um 15:54 schrieb SuStel:
I'm not surprised that you don't recognize sarcasm.
I do recognize sarcasm. I just said that you exaggerated.
My point, in case you missed it, is that Okrand's remarks should not be viewed as a slippery slope.
I got that.
And OF COURSE we can say *chenmoH Da'oy' jIH,*//because it's completely obviously what that means. Anyone who couldn't understand THAT one has got to be brain-damaged.
Your silly remark doesn't stop me from admitting that I really have no idea was it could mean.
Thank you for demonstrating my point.
Haha. Now I got it. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery
On 4/3/2019 9:57 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 03.04.2019 um 15:54 schrieb SuStel:
I'm not surprised that you don't recognize sarcasm.
I do recognize sarcasm. I just said that you exaggerated.
Because that is the mechanism behind the slippery slope.
My point, in case you missed it, is that Okrand's remarks should not be viewed as a slippery slope.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
There’s a scene near the end of The Incredibles where Dash falls back in the back seat of the car and says, “I LOVE THIS FAMILY”. I’m feelin’ that right now. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Apr 3, 2019, at 10:00 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 4/3/2019 9:57 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 03.04.2019 um 15:54 schrieb SuStel:
I'm not surprised that you don't recognize sarcasm.
I do recognize sarcasm. I just said that you exaggerated. Because that is the mechanism behind the slippery slope.
My point, in case you missed it, is that Okrand's remarks should not be viewed as a slippery slope.
-- 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 Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 15:21, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
Hooray! It's now perfectly fine to say *bIvoqbe' 'ej muSuj 'e'!* Because Okrand said breaking rules is acceptable, and we all KNOW what the sentence means!
That's obviously not what Okrand means. He even wrote a section in KGT on intentional ungrammaticality.
And now we can say *qatlh ghaH DaHoHpu' 'e' vISov** I know why you killed him,* because c'mon, we all KNOW what it means.
And OF COURSE we can say *chenmoH Da'oy' jIH,* because it's completely obviously what that means. Anyone who couldn't understand THAT one has got to be brain-damaged.
Is this supposed to mean something? If it was intended as an actual example of someone breaking the rules of Klingon but in a way which is easy for someone else to decipher, I'm afraid I don't know what the English translation of that sentence is supposed to be. A much better example is {SoS jIH batlh SoH}, which was actually used on the TNG episode "The Bonding", and obviously contrary to how Okrand recommends to approach Klingon grammar despite being very easy to reconstruct the intended meaning.
(Or maybe, just maybe, he just means that we should look at Klingon samples in their proper contexts, that what he writes shouldn't be analyzed as perfect and completely normative text. A Skybox card is just a Skybox card, not an Officially Sanctioned Representative of Klingon Grammar.)
-- De'vID
participants (7)
-
Daniel Dadap -
De'vID -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin