On Aug 28, 2019, at 10:19, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

And when a gentle wind blows, without "storm"ing, "cyclon"ing, or "hurricane"ing, then what do we say ?

qaS SuS ? vIH rewve' pep'en ?

{SuS} is a verb as well as a noun, so {SuS} should be sufficient. If it being gentle is important, maybe: pe'vIlHa' SuS loQ SuS SuSqu'be'

The gloss “blow (into wind instrument) to produce sound” in KGT may have been overly specific. I think Okrand probably meant {SuS}to be a general word for “blow (into/onto/at something)” – i.e. what the wind {SuS} does. Perhaps it was originally a weather verb like {SIS} “It’s raining”-- {SuS} “It’s winding” as it were or. more colloquially, “The wind is blowing.” Okrand has discussed {SuS}: (KGT 75): Wind instruments (there is no overall term for them) range from the simple flute or fife ({Dov'agh}), generally crafted from a bone, to the highly complex {meSchuS}. This is a very large instrument, not at all easily moved from place to place, which consists of a network of interlocking tubes. One tube terminates in the mouthpiece ({ngujlep}) into which the player blows ({SuS}). (qepHom 2017 p.20): The verb {jo'} means “blow into a container of some kind” in the sense of “inflate, fill with air, blow up” ('blow up' like to blow up a balloon, not 'explode'). It's used for blowing up a balloon, blowing into a paper bag (so you can then hit the bag against something so that it explodes with a loud noise), whatever it is that glass blowers do, and, yes, blow bubbles. It's not the same as {SuS}, which can also be used for blowing out a candle. With {SuS} you're blowing into/onto/at something, but the air gets out of the thing (or never goes in it). With {jo'}, the air is trapped in the thing and can't come out until you let it out (or the thing breaks). The object of both verbs is the thing you blow into/onto/at. If you use a {-Daq} construction, it implies that you missed – you blew towards the object, but the air bypassed it. -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons ________________________________________________________________________ From: mayqel qunen'oS Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 10:29 AM Hugh:

{SuS} is a verb as well as a noun, so {SuS} should be sufficient

The only definition I can find for {SuS} (v) is "blow into wind instrument to produce sound", and the crap about blowing out a candle. Could we stretch {SuS} (v) to "wind blowing in general" as well ?

De'vID:

qatlh bIjatlh, "crap"?

Yea, my bad.. My bad, not because I didn't mean it, but because I should have expected that it would cause people to wonder why I wrote it. Anyways, since you ask, here is why I wrote it. Okrand can create as many new words as he likes. There is no limit. However, often he chooses to take a word, and start expanding its meaning. Then he expands it even more. And then some more. So, often, I need to make coffee and start reading an entire paragraph, in order to understand all the various ways, in which a specific word could be used. And I often wonder.. Why do I need to go through this, trying to find all the ways the meaning of a word has been expended, while we could have a new word instead and be done with it ? Now, this is just my personal opinion, I realize that many may disagree, and that's ok. I respect everyone's opinion, and qeylIS knows I don't want to start arguing.. After all its mark's language, and of course it's his right to develop it anyway he sees fit. Let alone the fact, that no one forces anyone to learn it. But as I say quite often, a fan has the right of having an opinion too. ~ cqcqcqq

All Klingons are not alike. […] By the same token, all Klingons do not speak alike. — Marc Okrand, Klingon for the Galactic Traveller (p.7) Agreeing is not a trait typically associated with Klingon nature, however, and apparently, at least under certain circumstances, this may extend to grammar as well. — Marc Okrand, Klingon for the Galactic Traveller (p.172) 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." — Marc Okrand, The Klingon Dictionary (introduction) [...] the course to follow for a student probably falls somewhere between. You don't want to go too fast and loose or too far afield because then nobody will understand what you are doing. You won't have any rules at all. You don't want to be too rigorous, either. It's not math. One of the things that I think about when I read what people have to say about Klingon sometimes is when someone argues that things have to be one way, I think, "No, it shouldn't always be like that." It should be like that in maybe 75% or 80% of the cases, but not 100%. Languages don't work that way. — Interview with Marc Okrand (HolQeD 7.4) Marc Okrand was trying to make {tlhIngan Hol} a natural-sounding artificial language, not an artificially rigid and logical language (suitable for programming). So yes, ambiguities and multiple meanings are a feature, not a bug. Or as I said earlier this week: Klingon isn’t Vulcan -- although Okrand may have designed both of them. -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons Any fool can make a rule. And every fool will mind it. — Henry David Thoreau It is astonishing how much enjoyment one can get out of a language that one understands imperfectly. — Basil L. Gildersleeve (in re ancient Greek) Damage control is easy. Reading Klingon—that's hard! — Montgomery Scott to James Kirk (STIV: The Voyage Home) ____________________________________________________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of nIqolay Q On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 9:14 AM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com<mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote: And I often wonder.. Why do I need to go through this, trying to find all the ways the meaning of a word has been expended, while we could have a new word instead and be done with it ? It helps the language feel more natural to have words that have multiple related meanings. In English, for example, "cell" can mean a prison cell, a biological cell, or a cell phone, all of which derive from the original notion of a small chamber. It does make things a little more complicated, but that's languages for you. (At least no word in Klingon has as many meanings as something like the German "Zug<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Zug#Noun>"...) It's also more of a challenge to the language designer to see what existing words could be used to express a concept, and provides an opportunity to think of clever ways to have related words.