On 1/9/2020 8:51 AM, jevreh@qeylis.net wrote:

In English, the positive or negative implications of “I won’t destroy my life because of her” are contextual. Is the the positive cause for why I’ve decided to not destroy my life… ir was she a negative influence that I refuse to give in to and destroy my life because of? The answer is contextual.

I imagine the difference is the same in Klingon — in depends on what discussion came before.

I wouldn't make that assumption. Instead, I would ensure the negation has the proper scope. *ghaHmo' yInwIj vIQaw' 'e' vIqaSmoHQo'.* *ghaHmo' yInwIj vIQaw' 'e' vIchaw'Qo'. * -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 1/9/2020 9:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:

jevreH:

...

I imagine the difference is the same in Klingon — in depends on what discussion came before. SuStel: I wouldn't make that assumption.

I'm afraid I can't understand, where you disagree with jevreH.

I'm not disagreeing; I'm saying jevreH is making an assumption I wouldn't make.

Reading both of your replies, I understand that the phrase {ghaHmo', yInwIj vIQaw'be'}, can be understood both ways.

That is the assumption I'm not making. To avoid making this assumption, I translated the phrase differently. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 1/9/2020 12:06 PM, Will Martin wrote:

I think it’s perfectly appropriate to include cultural context when translating to and from Klingon.

You keep wanting to do this, and you keep ignoring the big problem with it: Klingons aren't real. Klingons are whatever the writers say they are in the episodes or movies in which they appear. They do what the writers need them to do and say what the writers need them to say. We accept what Okrand says about them as true because that's the game we're playing, and we can watch shows and movies and recognize cultural traits. What we can't do is say "Klingons tend to act like X, so in their language they wouldn't say Y." There are no Klingons that people who aren't Okrand can go and ask to confirm or refute their hypotheses. Imagine someone was learning to speak American English. They wonder how to say "I don't believe in guns" in English. Their friend, who is also studying American English, says, "You can't say that in America, because Americans love their guns and wouldn't be caught dead not carrying one." Not only does this derive from an over-the-top stereotype, it's just not true: the statement /can/ be said in English, even by Americans. While culture and language are clearly and strongly tied together, one's culture does not dictate everything that can be said in one's language. People violate taboos all the time. Taboos have varying seriousness. Monocultures are not real, even for Klingons. Unless Okrand tells us a cultural restriction about Klingon, we cannot assume any. When real Klingons beam down and start talking to us, we can revise this restriction. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 1/9/2020 3:41 PM, Will Martin wrote:

Your argument is rational and well stated. I believe that I understand your perspective fairly well.

The main thing your argument misses is that we ARE playing a game here, and while you object to me saying, “The game suggests that you probably shouldn't say X,” you are, yourself, saying, “You can't say anything about the cultural part of the game because the cultural rules of the game might change at any time, depending on the whim of any Star Trek Universe author, script writer, or Okrand."

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that inside the game, you have to play the part of a non-Klingon learning Klingon without any Klingons around. You have to pretend that Klingons are real. And if Klingons were real, you couldn't go around telling people how they use their own language when you haven't actually asked one. And if you don't play that game, if you assume the role of arbiter of Klingon language according to observed Klingon stereotypes, what validity does that have? Why should you be able to dictate what Klingons would or wouldn't do? Who are you to tell the world what you're allowed to say in Klingon? The game is that we're all students of a language spoken by a native population which we have extremely limited access to. We're trying to learn how those native speakers use their language. We can't declare how their culture affects their language, because we can't ask them how their culture affects their language, except when Okrand relays that information.

The vocabulary changes with regularity, modified by those same authors, script writers, and Okrand. The grammar gets changed from time to time, as with the deeper level of explanations revealed about {-choH} years after TKD came out. The Appendix changed the grammar after the original TKD came out. Why can’t we use what we know about the culture just like we use what we know about the vocabulary and grammar?

We update our understanding of the vocabulary by studying the examples and information given to us by Okrand. We can update our understanding of the way Klingon culture affects their language the same way: by studying the examples and information given to us by Okrand. What we can't do is invent ways in which Klingon culture affects their language, because that violates the game.

You are restricting my free speech as much as you appear to be trying to stop me from restricting someone else’s, even though I’m not really trying to restrict it. I’m just enjoying the part of the game we play that Klingons are real and they have both language and culture, because if they did, then you wouldn’t REALLY understand the finer points of the language without understanding the culture.

But you're taking a step too far. You're not just saying "We know this about Klingon culture"; you're saying "We know this about Klingon culture, and that means a Klingon would say this and not this in the Klingon language." But where does this information about what a Klingon would or would not say come from? From you, not from Okrand, not from Star Trek.

In other words, you are saying that we can’t play the culture part of the game.

I'm saying that the only way you can use the culture part of the game to control the language part of the game is when we've been told how the culture part controls the language part. Go ahead and talk about how Klingon has no /hello/ or /thank you./ Go ahead and talk about how Klingons prefer to be forceful. Go ahead and talk about how Klingons prefer accuracy over approximation. These are all things we know to be true. But don't then tell me that one of my sentences is inappropriate because it is "vague, wittering, and indecisive." Don't tell me that I shouldn't even bother to try to translate a sentence because a Klingon would never respond in such a way. Don't tell me that I can't say anything approximately. These are not facts about the Klingon language.

Meanwhile, nothing in the rules of the list suggest that, in fact, we can’t play the culture part of the game, so long as it relates to the language part of the game. You might be the one person who persistently insists on this, and if that is true, I wonder why your vote carries so much more weight than anybody else’s.

Since you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, your perception of my "vote" is inaccurate. I'm playing the game by saying that we don't know the exact cultural effects on Klingon, so we shouldn't constrain people according to one person's evaluation of that culture. You, on the other hand, tell people why what they want to say is wrong, because of your estimation of what a Klingon would do. My vote doesn't count more; I just stay within the boundaries of the game.

Okrand didn’t create this language without reference to the culture of its fictitious speakers. Why do we have to bleach out all references to the culture? Why do the linguists win? Why do the Trekkers and I lose?

What makes you think that linguists don't want culture in their language studies? That's ludicrous. A linguist studying a language will not take the language on the one hand, and the culture on the other hand, and conclude that the culture causes the speakers of that language to say X or Y.  A linguist will ask those speakers whether or how they say X or Y, and whether the culture plays a role in that.

We do have to play the game to be here. In the game, Klingon is a real language, and it’s spoken by a somewhat brutish warrior race with a passion for honor and testosterone. Here, we are not Merry Men.

Here, we are not Klingons. The game is not that we pretend to be Klingons. The game is that we are studying the language of the Klingons. The game is that Okrand is in contact with a Klingon and transmits that Klingon's linguistic — and cultural — information on to us. Now, if you want to pretend to be a Klingon, that's fine... but your behavior is not canonical Klingon. You can choose to say what you like for whatever reason you like. But when someone asks "How do you say this in Klingon?" they're not asking you to pretend to be a Klingon at them.

And this isn’t Esperanto: A language without a people or a culture. It’s not COBOL. It’s not Morse Code.

It is a language spoken by persons who have a culture.

It is a language spoken by fictional persons who have a fictional culture. And to engage with it, we have adopted the premise that Okrand is in contact with a single Klingon who transmits his linguistic information to us. All we know comes to us through Okrand.

You could, as a fictional linguist, seriously study that fictional language as if it belonged to those fictional people in that fictional culture. As a real linguist, you could play the same game as the rest of us and let us play with the culture.

We do not play fictional linguists.

Or, you can insist that this list is really just for linguists, and the only reason this list exists is to study Klingon as a language that doesn’t have any real people speaking it. Klingons are fiction. Klingon culture is fiction. The Klingon language is non-fiction.

Real Klingon language has no real native culture. Therefore it is impossible to make declarations about what you're allowed to say in it based on cultural impacts.

Why… so… seeeeeeeeerious?

You're the one who posts five-page diatribes. I'm just insisting you stick to the game. If we don't have the premise of Okrand talking to Maltz as our only source of information, then we have chaos. You can make up your own Klingon culture. I can make up my own words. Klingon consists only of TKD, TKW, and KGT, because those are the only actual books Okrand has published on the subject, and everything on the KLI's new words list is unofficial and wrong. Klingon is just a Star Trek novelty book, and it doesn't matter if I think *nug neh* means /hello,/ and I'm damn well going to sell it on my tote bags, and why are these guys in T-shirts pestering me about it?

I know which version I prefer. Am I really so alone here? Is it true that everyone who isn’t a real linguist or a linguist wannabe has dried up and blown away? Am I the last one left with a simultaneous interest in fantasy and grammar?

Email is for old people. The serious Klingon student is on Facebook. Didn't you know?

I mean, if it is so important that the language is non-fiction, but the culture is fiction, why use a Klingon name?

The language is real. It was developed by a linguist named Marc Okrand to give characters in a movie their own language, and he published a novelty book about it that pretends to be written in the universe of that movie, by people who don't natively speak the language it describes. We enter this universe by accepting the book's premise and learning along with its fictional target audience. In that universe, we are not Klingons. We study their language and culture, but we do not have first-hand information. Once we leave that universe, we have learned the real-life language of Klingon, but we cannot modify or dictate the rules of that language outside of the universe it comes from. If we want to pretend to be Klingons, we do so not in the universe in which we learned Klingon, where we are non-Klingon students, but in a universe in which we are Klingons who know everything about the language. But that universe does not affect the other. I don't visit your I'm-a-Klingon universe, so I don't play by your rules. But you DO visit the Okrand-speaks-to-Maltz universe along with me, and that is where we MUST accept that Klingon is defined for us. This list supports the Okrand-speaks-to-Maltz universe, not the charghwI'-is-a-Klingon universe. As for my name, that's mostly a handle I use on the Internet. I also go by /Stormcrow/ on many forums. It provides a unique identity that leans into the theme of the thing and provides my audience with a cue: when I use my Klingon name, it means I'm talking in or about Klingon. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 1/9/2020 5:09 PM, Will Martin wrote:

Interesting.

I play the game as a Klingon. That’s why I use the Klingon name.

Then you play a Klingon who, for some reason, does not have access to first-hand knowledge of his world's language and culture. This game, the one which gives Okrand his authority over Klingon, is premised on the idea that only Okrand can produce canonical Klingon. That's the deal. When you play a Klingon, you're not playing under the same premise. When you play a Klingon, you cannot inform me of how your language works beyond what Okrand has told us. [snip a pointless rant about Facebook]

I still don’t understand why the Okrand-speaks-to-Maltz Universe can’t include the charghwI’-is-a-Klingon Universe.

Because you do not have access to first-hand knowledge about Klingons and their language, so you cannot reproduce the state of being an Okrand-canonical Klingon. [snip pointless tangent about the word /universe./]

I like environments where more than one perspective is allowed. Unlike what you describe.

I like perspectives just fine. I'm talking about premises. The premise here is that Okrand has the only access to an actual Klingon, and he finds out things about the language and culture from him. Under that premise, you /cannot/ be a Klingon with first-hand knowledge of the language or culture. You can role-play a Klingon all you want. I have no problem with that. But this list assumes the premise I have repeated several times now. You can role-play a Klingon here if you want, that's fine. But your role-play doesn't inform the truth about the language, and you shouldn't be telling people what Klingons would or wouldn't say when people are asking linguistic questions.

And I very much like the list as it was when the list had HoD Qanqor as a grammarian, who shows up at qep’a’ in full uniform, complete with forehead, very much not acting like a human student. He’s fun.

Nothing Krankor says is canonical either. And Krankor intentionally ignores anything Okrand says that he doesn't like. As fun as he may be, he does not hold authority to dictate the ways of the Klingon language. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 1/9/2020 10:19 PM, Will Martin wrote:

You don’t seem to notice that Okrand and Maltz don’t exist in adjacent centuries. The game is full of inconsistencies. That’s part of what makes it so interesting.

Don't be ridiculous. The premise does not need to be logical to be the premise. See J.R.R. Tolkien's essay "On Fairy Stories." We effortlessly invest our secondary belief in Okrand's sub-creation regardless of whether it's logical in the primary world. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 1/10/2020 10:07 AM, Will Martin wrote:

I never said he couldn’t say it. I just gave my opinion, as a cultural Klingon, about whether or not he should.

So you were saying that mayqel, who has on many occasions insisted that he is not pretending to be a Klingon, should not translate his musings on his ex into Klingon? I'm sure I missed the part in /Power Klingon/ where we're told that Klingons do not think about past relationships. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 1/10/2020 3:31 PM, Will Martin wrote:

Let's get back to the original example, which you appear to wish to defend as acceptable, even if everybody, and I do mean EVERYBODY, agrees that your suggested alternatives are better.

My suggestions simply avoid an area of grammar which we're not sure of. They're not better expressions. If the grammar works the way mayqel was assuming, which it might, then his sentences are better for being more concise. But it's not clear whether the negation can cover the cause-noun he provided, so I reworded it to avoid that question. This has nothing to do with what is "more Klingon" to say.

His English sentence was: "I won't destroy my life because of her.” He admitted it was ambiguous and he made it clear that he did NOT mean that she was the cause of him not destroying his life, then he attempted a word-by-word-without-reference-to-the-underlying-meaning translation of the original, ambiguous English sentence.

He did consider the underlying meaning, which is why he asked the question in the first place. He was wondering whether the negation covered the entire phrase or just the verb. And I said the answer to that is unclear, so here's an alternative to avoid the problem in the first place.

He picked the wrong negative suffix, since {-be’} utterly fails to convey the willful refusal to perform the action of the verb. It implies a passive lack of action. Both your translations used {-Qo’}, instead, and you were right to do so.

Sure, but the question was not about whether *-be'* or *-Qo'* was the proper rover to use. I silently changed it precisely because that wasn't the answer to the question.

The Klingon version he proposed was {ghaHmo', yInwIj vIQaw'be’}.

The only way this works as a translation other than what he has explained he does NOT want to express, is to interpret it as “I destroyed my life because of her — not.”

It also might works as a translation if the *-be'* can be applied to the entire phrase *ghaHmo' yInwIj vIQaw'.* We've seen *-be'* apply to more than just the immediately preceding element. *batlh bIHeghbe'* /You will die without honor /(not /You will not-die honorably/) appears in /Power Klingon,/ and there may be a couple of other examples of this sort of thing. mayqel's problem is exactly the same question. Is this *[ghaHmo' yInwIj vIQaw']be'*? To answer the question by avoiding the problem, I reworded it. It has nothing to do with what a Klingon would do. A Klingon would know the answer to the grammatical question of the scope of *-be'.*

All you get out this uncommon parsing is, “It is not the case that I destroyed my life because of her.”

That’s kind of vague, don’t you think?

No, I don't. Not at all. And you don't occupy some special position to declare that Klingons would find it so.

If it’s not the case that he destroyed his life because of her, then what exactly is the case? What is he saying?

“I destroyed my life because of her,” is a false statement. So, what is the true statement?

I think this fully qualifies as vague, wittering, and indecisive, hence my aversion to the translation.

Three things. One: Saying something is not the case does not oblige one to say what is the case. mayqel is expressing that he dodged a bullet. In so doing, he doesn't have to tell anyone how great his life has been instead. Question of grammar aside, mayqel has expressed something as precisely as he meant to. Klingons are allowed to say that some things didn't happen. Two: My alternatives also simply state things that are not the case, but you don't have a problem with them. Three: Accusing people or their writing of being "vague, wittering, and indecisive" is RUDE. Especially by turning it into a catchphrase. It's not funny. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

The point everyone who makes this argument overreacts to is that I never say, “YOU can’t say that.” I make it clear that the grammar allows it. I just say that a Klingon probably wouldn’t say that for cultural reasons, and SuStel consistently jumps down my throat for saying a thing he personally forbids on this list. I never suggest that it is more than an opinion. The passion of the objection suggests that I’m trying to take over this list and rip the language out of Okrand’s fingers, claiming it as mine to shape and modify to my whims. It’s pretty silly, really. Get over yourselves. Sent from my iPad

On Jan 11, 2020, at 6:03 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

 I believe, this whole matter has to do, with each person's motives..

If someone's into roleplaying/cosplaying, then yes, what a klingon would or wouldn't say, is important (for him only).

But there are those of us, who don't learn klingon for the purposes of roleplaying..

I was always irritated, and still am, when I read the argument "a klingon wouldn't say that", because when I ask, I ask about grammar, and not with regards to what a klingon would and would not say.

If for example I wanted to say: "I'm afraid to face whatever", I didn't know how, and asked for help, then the last thing I'd want to hear is "klingons wouldn't say that", because I simply do not care..

Let alone the fact, that if there were real klingons, they wouldn't be using a language crawling with terran puns.

Anyways, don't get me wrong; I respect 100% each person's choices, and if there's something noone here can accuse the other of, is that he loves klingon less.

We're all good klingon patriots here..

And it would be boring if we all had the same approach to the language.

But I just think, that the argument "a klingon wouldn't say that", has no place in a discussion concerning grammar, unless of course someone insists on intentionally breaking the rules of holy Ca'Non, or translates idioms from a terran language in klingon.

To me it's like someone telling me: "whenever you use english, talk/behave like an englishman".

~ mayqel qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

On Jan 11, 2020, at 8:28 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

Unless you've got some kind of direct evidence as to what a Klingon would do, it is not a valid criticism of the things someone wants to say.

I think you’re referring to his suggestion that context strong enough to override an otherwise obvious meaning of a phrase is strong enough to make the phrase itself unnecessary. I offer this “direct evidence” in support of the proposition: DS9 “Way of the Warrior” shows Martok presenting a Daqtagh to Sisko, saying the single word {SoHvaD}. He did not think it necessary to say anything further about how the former owner of the knife had been executed for failing to follow orders. That was obvious, at least to someone familiar with the cultural context of the situation. Basically, if a thing need not be said in order for it to be understood, it is appropriate not to say it. — ghunchu'wI'

Am 11.01.2020 um 14:28 SuStel wrote to charghwI':

You're the one who posts pages-long screeds without being asked and with very tenuous connections to anything anybody is saying. You're the one who regularly rage-quits the list.

The main reason for people "rage-quitting" the list is YOU and your never-ending unnecessary discussions like this one. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/MailingList

Am 11.01.2020 um 17:04 schrieb SuStel:

Yep. And it takes two to tango. By the way, didn't you rage-quit recently?

Yes, because of you. ("Recently" was more than half a year ago.) That's why I mentioned that since you are the main reason on this list for people to "rage-quit", it's ironic you blame them doing so. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Gagh

Am 11.01.2020 um 17:04 schrieb SuStel:

Yep. And it takes two to tango.

Nice image, because even in a tango, the leading dancer can decide where to go. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery

Clearly, *I* am not being understood, since accusers such as yourself consistently presume my motives with wild inaccuracy. The intriguing part is that I’m being accused of... wait for it... presuming your motives with wild inaccuracy. I can only assume from this that we participate in a list dedicated to the mission of better use of a language, and we all seem to be quite possibly bad, in general, at communicating clearly, perhaps in ANY of the languages we share. It reminds me of an intentional community I once belonged to that was composed mostly of people who chose to join because they were so remarkably bad at participating in the communities they came from. They despised all forms of rules, so they got together to make up a bunch of rules, which they despised... I left there to join a normal neighborhood and was pleasantly surprised that I got along with my new neighbors much better than I had with a community that was philosophically boastful about all their systems they had devised to help them get along well together, which they didn’t seem to notice that they didn’t do very well. I thought that I must have been the problem, until I spent a couple decades getting along quite well with the newer neighborhood. Visiting the old community, I saw that they were very much still at it, as far from peaceful cohabitation as ever. I presume nothing about what you intended to poorly communicate. I’ve lost interest in the thread entirely, having lost the faith that anything I write will be read without the veins protruding from your throat as soon as you see it’s from me regardless of content. Your attitude about the source (me) makes further meaningful communication unlikely to be effective. Be at peace. I no longer care what you think on this topic. I will leave you to presume or express whatever you like however you like. And no, I’m not rage-leaving he list. I’m quite calm, somewhat amused, and very much still here. Sent from my iPad

On Jan 12, 2020, at 7:06 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

charghwI':

...

If he’s saying that he dodged a bullet, then perhaps his focus on being concise has trumped his interest in being understood.

fse:

You have the *really* nasty habit, of constantly judging other people's motives, with regards to how they're willing to use the language.

You're not some kind of klingon police, being in position to accuse, who wants to be understood and who doesn't.

So, it would preferable, to refrain from accusing people that they're not willing or interested to be understood.

tlh:

tlhIngan Hol lo'taHvIS vay', meqmeyDaj tlhIn ghajbej nuvvam, 'ej meqmeyvam DaSovchu' 'e' DaHarba'. vaj, reH nuvvam DaqIchqangmo', quvyaH qabqu' Daghaj.

tlhIngan ghan'Iq Sar SoHbe', vaj pagh DapumlaH, 'ej paghvaD bIjatlhlaH: nIyaj latlhpu' DaneHbe'.

luyajlu'; 'e' luneHbe' 'op nuvpu'. luyajlu'; ngoQvam luSaHbe' 'op nuvpu'. latlhpu' DaqIchmeH mu'meyvam DajatlhtaH. 'ach not mu'meyvam Dajatlhqa'chugh, vaj qaqqu'.

~ mayqel qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

On Jan 12, 2020, at 8:54 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 1/12/2020 8:19 AM, Will Martin wrote:

...

Clearly, *I* am not being understood, since accusers such as yourself consistently presume my motives with wild inaccuracy.

The intriguing part is that I’m being accused of... wait for it... presuming your motives with wild inaccuracy. lughchu' mayqel pum.

bIjatlhpu': "If he’s saying that he dodged a bullet, then perhaps his focus on being concise has trumped his interest in being understood."

jangpu' mayqel: "You have the *really* nasty habit, of constantly judging other people's motives, with regards to how they're willing to use the language."

lughchu'. mayqel meq DanoHpu'. wIyajchu'qu'.

meqlIj? meqlIj vInoHbe’. I know that I do not understand other people’s motives. I do note their apparent priorities. That’s very much not the same thing. I’m frequently surprised by how often others presume to understand MY motives. I’m saying this in English because I have little enough faith that it can be communicated well to you and mayqel in English and far less faith that you can handle that subtlety of intent in Klingon. Ironically, I’ve tried to talk about how important Klingon cultural context is in understanding expressions, and I forgot about the cultural context of this list. In this list, the cultural context is that I’m expected to be a jerk with evil motives, so whatever I say gets that baggage added to it, whether it deserves it or not. It’s just assumed. A motive is a “why”. A priority is a “what”. They are quite different in character.

...

I presume nothing about what you intended to poorly communicate. "If he’s saying that he dodged a bullet, then perhaps his focus on being concise has trumped his interest in being understood."

tlhIngan Hol jatlhlu'taHvIS, chay' presumption jatlhlu'? mu'tlheghvam Delchu' mu'vam.

batlh Qumpu' mayqel. vay' yajchu'be'pu', vaj boQmaj neHpu'.

Focus is not motive. It’s priority. There’s an option to be concise. There’s an option to be comprehensively understood. He appeared to lean in toward being concise. That’s not evil or wrong, though it does have consequences. Conciseness is positively valued in Klingon culture, and this is reflected in the language. None of this has anything to do with motives. You and he seem remarkably drawn toward wanting to talk about motives. If that trend has a motive behind it, I honestly don’t understand it. I prefer to assume that a person understands their own motives better than I do, so I try not to comment on it, unless it really gets in the way of communication to avoid the topic. My motive is that I want to play. You guys seem to want to argue and insult. I have no idea why. I’m quite certain that I am part of the problem. I write too much and I am outspoken, and I react negatively to being told what not to say, especially when I don’t think I said a specific thing I’m told that I’ve said because of an important difference in shade of meaning between my intent and what I’m accused of intending. I think that’s one of the ways you and I are alike, which is why we get into these long, angsty dialogs. Each of us is determined to straighten out a picky detail about what the other one falsely accused the other of saying. Neither of us reads the others words carefully enough, though we both try to. Neither of us expresses ourselves perfectly enough, though we both try to. We’re both probably pretty good people. We just each snag each other's surfaces that we want to be perfectly smooth, and as we each pick away at smaller and smaller, insignificant details, we fail to notice the vast smooth surface of our agreements. They are mysteriously less important to us. Tomayto. Tomahto. Let’s call the whole thing off.

...

I’ve lost interest in the thread entirely, vaj qatlh QInvam DangeHpu''a' jay'? mu' Qav DaneH.

Great question, very similar to your {jISaHbe’}, quickly followed by insisting that I answer some question you had next to {jISaHbe’} that I didn’t bother with because, hey, you don’t care, right? Why ask a question about something you don’t care about, and then get huffy about not getting an answer? Silly argumentative games I do not pretend to understand.

...

having lost the faith that anything I write will be read without the veins protruding from your throat as soon as you see it’s from me regardless of content. rut maQochHa', 'ej ngugh jIjatlh maQochHa'. bo'Dagh'a' Dalo’.

ghaytan bIlughchu’. I was feeling like I’m solo in the ring with the two of you tag teaming. My defensiveness was a reasonable personal flaw, given the circumstance.

...

Your attitude about the source (me) makes further meaningful communication unlikely to be effective.

The source consistently makes improved attitude unlikely to be realized.

I’ll work on that. My compulsion to overthink things can have positive results. Tune in again next week. I have more capacity to change than you probably credit me with.

...

I no longer care what you think on this topic. I will leave you to presume or express whatever you like however you like. maj. bImejDI', DungeQ lojmIt 'e' yIchaw'Qo’.

See? You DO have a sense of humor. chaq mareHlaH. ghaytanHa’ tugh… bIloStaHvIS, yItlhuHtaH.

-- 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

It’s nice to see how diplomatic you can be while you avoid any temptation to exaggerate or insult anybody. You clearly don’t seek to amplify disagreements or overstate the contrast between your flawless comprehension of everyone’s side of the argument and … whatever anyone else says. We are so fortunate to have you here, keeping the peace. Good work. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

On Jan 12, 2020, at 2:39 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 1/12/2020 2:02 PM, Will Martin wrote:

...

meqlIj? meqlIj vInoHbe’. I know that I do not understand other people’s motives. I do note their apparent priorities. That’s very much not the same thing.

Semantic backpedaling.

...

I’m frequently surprised by how often others presume to understand MY motives. I don't understand your motives. They're bizarre.

...

I’m saying this in English because I have little enough faith that it can be communicated well to you and mayqel in English and far less faith that you can handle that subtlety of intent in Klingon. bItlhaQqu'! choHagh 'e' yImev; jItaHlaHbe'! Subtle? SoH?! SommI' jejHa' rur Hol laHlIj.

...

Ironically, I’ve tried to talk about how important Klingon cultural context is in understanding expressions, and I forgot about the cultural context of this list. In this list, the cultural context is that I’m expected to be a jerk with evil motives, so whatever I say gets that baggage added to it, whether it deserves it or not. It’s just assumed. bImIghbe'ba'. bIvIngbej. bIlachbej. bIlaDHa'bej. 'ach bImIghbe'.

...

A motive is a “why”. A priority is a “what”. They are quite different in character. Well then stop judging people's priorities.

...

...

...

I presume nothing about what you intended to poorly communicate. "If he’s saying that he dodged a bullet, then perhaps his focus on being concise has trumped his interest in being understood."

tlhIngan Hol jatlhlu'taHvIS, chay' presumption jatlhlu'? mu'tlheghvam Delchu' mu'vam.

batlh Qumpu' mayqel. vay' yajchu'be'pu', vaj boQmaj neHpu'.

Focus is not motive. It’s priority. There’s an option to be concise. There’s an option to be comprehensively understood. He appeared to lean in toward being concise.

Excuse me, sir. You appear to be sitting in a pile of cow manure.

He tried to make a sentence. He asked if he got it right. He wasn't trying to be especially concise; he was asking if it would be understood. That's it. He didn't ask you to turn into a Klingon, transport him to the Homeworld, and ask the nearby Klingons to psychoanalyze him. And when you tried to do exactly this, with the backing of the suggestions I offered, I objected to the accuracy of the methodology.

...

None of this has anything to do with motives. You and he seem remarkably drawn toward wanting to talk about motives. If that trend has a motive behind it, I honestly don’t understand it. I prefer to assume that a person understands their own motives better than I do, so I try not to comment on it, unless it really gets in the way of communication to avoid the topic.

My motive is that I want to play. You guys seem to want to argue and insult. I have no idea why. You see? You're doing it again.

You're the one who started this, stating that you knew full well that you were starting an argument.

...

Great question, very similar to your {jISaHbe’}, quickly followed by insisting that I answer some question you had next to {jISaHbe’} that I didn’t bother with because, hey, you don’t care, right? Why ask a question about something you don’t care about, and then get huffy about not getting an answer? You sent a message to the list saying that today you were a Klingon, and stuff about Marc Okrand being right over you. So I engaged you in your premise and responded as a Klingon. Just as the Klingon in Power Klingon answers the Terran opening a conversation with talk about the weather, you opened a conversation by talking about Okrand's superior canonicity. This didn't seem to be relevant to anything, so I answered the same was as the Klingon in PK: I don't care. Whaddyawant? State your business. And you didn't do that. You complained that I'd answered you: if I didn't care, why did I answer? Just like the bumbling Terran who asked, "Why did you say you don't care?"

You utterly failed to behave like a Klingon. You didn't make your business known, and when told to do so in the usual Klingon manner, you failed to correct your mistake. You deserve to be blasted with a disruptor. In your pretend Klingon world, of course.

-- 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 1/12/2020 4:29 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:

Am 11.01.2020 um 17:04 schrieb SuStel:

...

Yep. And it takes two to tango.

Nice image, because even in a tango, the leading dancer can decide where to go.

vI'oghbe'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_takes_two_to_tango maj. qaDev 'ej chotlha'. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

Replies in line below. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

On Jan 10, 2020, at 4:23 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

...

...

The Klingon version he proposed was {ghaHmo', yInwIj vIQaw'be’}.

The only way this works as a translation other than what he has explained he does NOT want to express, is to interpret it as “I destroyed my life because of her — not.” It also might works as a translation if the -be' can be applied to the entire phrase ghaHmo' yInwIj vIQaw'.

We've seen -be' apply to more than just the immediately preceding element. batlh bIHeghbe' You will die without honor (not You will not-die honorably) appears in Power Klingon, and there may be a couple of other examples of this sort of thing. mayqel's problem is exactly the same question. Is this [ghaHmo' yInwIj vIQaw']be'? To answer the question by avoiding the problem, I reworded it. It has nothing to do with what a Klingon would do. A Klingon would know the answer to the grammatical question of the scope of -be'.

That was pretty much what I intended to convey with “I destroyed my life because of her — not.” We had this grammatical argument years ago, and I’ve already conceded that this grammar is possibly correct. Meanwhile, you can be grammatically correct and fail to convey intended meaning.

...

All you get out this uncommon parsing is, “It is not the case that I destroyed my life because of her.”

That’s kind of vague, don’t you think? No, I don't. Not at all.

I see it as very different from the canon example that first suggested that this grammar works. A Klingon mother manipulates her child into eating everything served him by suggesting that if he doesn’t, then {batlh bIHeghbe’.} A Klingon would not misinterpret this as “You will honorably not-die,” because, whether you like it or not, Klingon culture heavily contrasts American and Western European culture in terms of in the attitude concerning death. Klingons know that we will all die and they are quite open about it. There is no option to honorably not die. You can live honorably, but that’s not the same thing as honorably not dying, because YOU WILL DIE. There is no option to not die. All lives end. Humans speak most often in euphemisms to avoid the topic entirely. “My uncle passed away. He is no longer with us.” Ask a human how they wish to die, and the response is typically quite different from a Klingon. A Klingon would quite comfortably suggest {batlh jIHegh vIneH.} A human would more typically evade or redirect the conversation. So, when a mother suggests, {batlh bIHeghbe’}, it’s obvious her message is, “The path between you and an honorable death is THROUGH MY COOKING. If you don’t eat what I feed you, you will die ignominiously. Your relatives will spit at the mention of your name. You will be shunned by your superiors. NOW EAT!” If you tell me {ghaHmo’ yInwIj vIQaw’be’}, my natural response is a mixture of {nuqjatlh?} and {nuqneH?} There’s no time stamp, so I don’t even know whether you are talking about the past or the future. I consider the past and reject it. You are here. You are alive. You’ve obviously not destroyed your life. Why bother me with something so obvious? What is it supposed to mean to me? I consider the present. This isn’t the middle east. She’s not handing you an explosive vest. You aren’t dressed as a samurai. She’s not handing you a short sword. There is no evidence that suggests that she is the cause of you destroying your life, so again, you seem to be telling me something obvious. So, perhaps it is the future. She will not be the cause of you destroying your life. Again, I wonder what your motive is. How is this supposed to involve me? If you were telling me that she is the cause of you not destroying your life, you would, perhaps, be explaining to me that you have great trust in her. That might suggest that if I have a mission that would involve three people, perhaps I should consider her to join you and me for dangerous work, because she can be trusted. But, you’ve told me that’s not what is intended to be conveyed, so again, {nuqjatlh?} and {nuqneH?}

...

If it’s not the case that he destroyed his life because of her, then what exactly is the case? What is he saying?

“I destroyed my life because of her,” is a false statement. So, what is the true statement?

I think this fully qualifies as vague, wittering, and indecisive, hence my aversion to the translation. Three things.

One: Saying something is not the case does not oblige one to say what is the case. mayqel is expressing that he dodged a bullet. In so doing, he doesn't have to tell anyone how great his life has been instead. Question of grammar aside, mayqel has expressed something as precisely as he meant to. Klingons are allowed to say that some things didn't happen.

If he’s saying that he dodged a bullet, then perhaps his focus on being concise has trumped his interest in being understood.

Two: My alternatives also simply state things that are not the case, but you don't have a problem with them.

I don’t have a problem with them because they explain the nature of the negation. It involves refusal. That’s why the difference between {-be’} and {-Qo’} is so important here. Your translations were clear. Your motive was clear. The relevance for me was clear. None of that was true of the original. You told me he dodged a bullet. He just told me that a bullet didn’t hit him. Given that he does not appear to have a bullet wound, your statement tells me something I didn’t know, but his version doesn’t.

Three: Accusing people or their writing of being "vague, wittering, and indecisive" is RUDE. Especially by turning it into a catchphrase. It's not funny.

Klingons are rude. And your point is...?

-- 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 Jan 9, 2020, at 4:33 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

I'm saying that the only way you can use the culture part of the game to control the language part of the game is when we've been told how the culture part controls the language part.

I agree with this. So why do you discount what Power Klingon tells us about Klingon culture and its influence on how best to use Klingon language?

“Let us start by demonstrating how acceptable Klingon conduct, derived from generations of battle behavior, can be conveyed through language. Above all else, Klingon warriors value four main ideals of behavior: accuracy, straightforwardness, aggressiveness, and strength. By careful use of language you can immediately signal your respect for these ideals, thus gaining respect. If you are going to operate in Klingon society you must have respect.”

Being vague goes against the ideal of accuracy. Being wittering goes against the ideal of straightforwardness. Being indecisive goes against the ideal of aggressiveness. A Klingon whose speech is “vague, wittering, and indecisive” is not respecting those ideals, is thus not respected, and therefore is not well equipped to operate in Klingon society. I believe we have adequate guidance to accept the claim that “Klingons wouldn’t say that” when the suggested phrasing is contrary to the ideals of behavior. It doesn’t mean a Klingon *couldn’t* say it, of course, but it strongly suggests that a Klingon should say it in a different fashion. — ghunchu'wI'

On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 at 22:33, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

Email is for old people. The serious Klingon student is on Facebook. Didn't you know?

lughbe'. Discord-Daq, Twitter-Daq, reddit-Daq, Duolingo-Daq joq tu'lu' je. -- De'vID