This is too good to be true, but what the ghe''or, I'll write it anyway. "my ancient cat is twice more beautiful than your ordinary cat" {'IH vIghro'lIj motlh, 'a cha'logh 'IH vIghro'wIj tIQ} Right ? (say yes, say yes, say yes, say yes, say yes, say yes..) But I *feel* many no's being loaded in torpedo tubes.. ~ changan qIj
{cha’llogh} is not an amount, but a number of repetitions of occurrence. Twice the amount would be {cha’ boq’egh}. Perhaps: {cha’ boq’egh IH’ vighro’wIj}? Sent from my iPad
On Mar 19, 2019, at 13:57, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
This is too good to be true, but what the ghe''or, I'll write it anyway.
"my ancient cat is twice more beautiful than your ordinary cat"
{'IH vIghro'lIj motlh, 'a cha'logh 'IH vIghro'wIj tIQ}
Right ?
(say yes, say yes, say yes, say yes, say yes, say yes..)
But I *feel* many no's being loaded in torpedo tubes..
~ changan qIj _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Mar 19, 2019, at 14:13, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com> wrote:
Twice the amount would be {cha’ boq’egh}.
It’s actually {cha'logh boq'egh}
Perhaps: {cha’ boq’egh IH’ vighro’wIj}?
Since {boq} and {'IH} are both verbs, I don’t really know how that would work, assuming it makes some kind of sense in the first place.
I was following the example from Klingon Monopoly regarding Praxis Energy. It is cha’logh though, my mistake. Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 19, 2019, at 14:41, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
On Mar 19, 2019, at 14:13, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com> wrote:
Twice the amount would be {cha’ boq’egh}.
It’s actually {cha'logh boq'egh}
Perhaps: {cha’ boq’egh IH’ vighro’wIj}?
Since {boq} and {'IH} are both verbs, I don’t really know how that would work, assuming it makes some kind of sense in the first place. _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Mar 19, 2019, at 3:13 PM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
On Mar 19, 2019, at 15:02, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com> wrote:
I was following the example from Klingon Monopoly regarding Praxis Energy.
Ah, okay. What’s the example?
{...loSlogh boq'egh mI' naghmey mI'...} The example has a number (a noun) as the subject. {'IH}, a verb, doesn’t work in the pattern. -- ghunchu'wI'
On Mar 19, 2019, at 15:42, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
On Mar 19, 2019, at 3:13 PM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
On Mar 19, 2019, at 15:02, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com> wrote: I was following the example from Klingon Monopoly regarding Praxis Energy.
Ah, okay. What’s the example?
{...loSlogh boq'egh mI' naghmey mI'...}
The example has a number (a noun) as the subject. {'IH}, a verb, doesn’t work in the pattern.
That makes sense. I was wondering if MKE gave us an example of {boq'egh} with something totally non-numeric, and it seems it didn’t, either here or with {qav'ap} as {mIp'av} pointed out. I wouldn’t expect anybody to accept these, but if we wanted to get “creative”, possibly one or both of these might make sense: {wa'vatlh vatlhvI'mo' vIghro'wIj 'IH law' vIghro' motlh 'IH puS} {'IHqu' vIghro'wIj; cha'logh boq'egh vIghro' motlh; chen vIghro'wIj.}
The core issue here is whether or not being beautiful is numerically measurable. Even the canon example of paying an unspecified amount implies that when you do the actual math, you’ll be using numbers. I’d just say {vIghro’lIj’e’, qaqchu’ vIghro’wIj.} Sent from my iPad
On Mar 19, 2019, at 6:45 PM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
On Mar 19, 2019, at 15:42, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
On Mar 19, 2019, at 3:13 PM, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
On Mar 19, 2019, at 15:02, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com> wrote: I was following the example from Klingon Monopoly regarding Praxis Energy.
Ah, okay. What’s the example?
{...loSlogh boq'egh mI' naghmey mI'...}
The example has a number (a noun) as the subject. {'IH}, a verb, doesn’t work in the pattern.
That makes sense. I was wondering if MKE gave us an example of {boq'egh} with something totally non-numeric, and it seems it didn’t, either here or with {qav'ap} as {mIp'av} pointed out.
I wouldn’t expect anybody to accept these, but if we wanted to get “creative”, possibly one or both of these might make sense:
{wa'vatlh vatlhvI'mo' vIghro'wIj 'IH law' vIghro' motlh 'IH puS} {'IHqu' vIghro'wIj; cha'logh boq'egh vIghro' motlh; chen vIghro'wIj.} _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Mar 19, 2019, at 18:58, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
The core issue here is whether or not being beautiful is numerically measurable.
Agreed. For the purposes of this discussion, I was working under the assumption that either Klingons measure beauty numerically, or that they use metaphorical numeric comparisons to compare non-numeric things, like English can. Neither of those assumptions seem like particularly good ones, and I’m not aware of any canon to support them, of course.
The {A X law’ B X puS} formula does suggest that there is some numerical “quantitativeness” to qualities of things. Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 19, 2019, at 20:15, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
On Mar 19, 2019, at 18:58, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
The core issue here is whether or not being beautiful is numerically measurable.
Agreed. For the purposes of this discussion, I was working under the assumption that either Klingons measure beauty numerically, or that they use metaphorical numeric comparisons to compare non-numeric things, like English can. Neither of those assumptions seem like particularly good ones, and I’m not aware of any canon to support them, of course. _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
vIghro' 'IH qaD tu'lu'chugh 'ej pe'eghmeH mI' Hevchugh ngIq vIghro', cha'logh boq'egh vIghro'lIj mI'; chen vIghro'wIj mI'. ~mIp'av
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 23:45, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
I wouldn’t expect anybody to accept these, but if we wanted to get “creative”, possibly one or both of these might make sense:
{wa'vatlh vatlhvI'mo' vIghro'wIj 'IH law' vIghro' motlh 'IH puS} {'IHqu' vIghro'wIj; cha'logh boq'egh vIghro' motlh; chen vIghro'wIj.}
I'm assuming the first is based on these examples: {cha' DISmo' jIH qan law' SoH qan puS} "I'm two years older than you." {cha' 'ujmo' jIH woch law' SoH woch puS} "I'm two {'uj}es taller than you." But wouldn't it be {cha'vatlh vatlhvI'mo'...}? When you're dealing with percentages, you're not saying "100% more", you're saying "200% as"... I think. What about something like: {vIghro'wIj tIQ 'IH law', vIghro'lIj motlh 'IH puS; cha'logh 'IH}? I don't know what it means to be beautiful twice, either, but maybe it's twice as good as being beautiful once. -- De'vID
*Qatlhqu'nISbe' mu'tlhegh.cha'logh boq'egh vIghro'lIj motlh 'IHtaHghach. chen vIghro'wIj tIQ 'IHtaHghach.* On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 4:43 AM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 23:45, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
I wouldn’t expect anybody to accept these, but if we wanted to get “creative”, possibly one or both of these might make sense:
{wa'vatlh vatlhvI'mo' vIghro'wIj 'IH law' vIghro' motlh 'IH puS} {'IHqu' vIghro'wIj; cha'logh boq'egh vIghro' motlh; chen vIghro'wIj.}
I'm assuming the first is based on these examples: {cha' DISmo' jIH qan law' SoH qan puS} "I'm two years older than you." {cha' 'ujmo' jIH woch law' SoH woch puS} "I'm two {'uj}es taller than you."
But wouldn't it be {cha'vatlh vatlhvI'mo'...}? When you're dealing with percentages, you're not saying "100% more", you're saying "200% as"... I think.
What about something like: {vIghro'wIj tIQ 'IH law', vIghro'lIj motlh 'IH puS; cha'logh 'IH}?
I don't know what it means to be beautiful twice, either, but maybe it's twice as good as being beautiful once.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
No surprises on the use of* -logh* in MKE: It says *Duj ghajchugh vay, cha'logh boq'egh qav'ap motlh; chen qav'ap le'. ghajwI'vaD qav'ap le' yIDIl.* "If owned, pay owner twice the rental to which they are otherwise entitled." (But it is proof that actual numbers aren't required in arithmetic expressions; as one might expect, it's possible to insert a word like *qav'ap* that has some numeric value that may be unspecified. Also, something I hadn't noticed before: evidently *DIl* can be used to mean "pay (the amount paid)," and not just the gloss of "pay for," so you might say *Duj vIje'meH wa' 'uy' DarSeq vIDIlpu'* "I paid one million darseks to buy the ship." If it weren't for this canon example, to play it safe I'd use some kind of wording like *Duj vIDIlmeH wa' 'uy' DarSeq vInatlhpu'* "I spent one million darseks to pay for the ship.") ~mIp'av On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:13 PM Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:
On Mar 19, 2019, at 15:02, Jeffrey Clark <jmclark85@gmail.com> wrote:
I was following the example from Klingon Monopoly regarding Praxis Energy.
Ah, okay. What’s the example? My Klingon Monopoly set is six thousand kellicams away at the moment. _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 21:07, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
No surprises on the use of* -logh* in MKE: It says *Duj ghajchugh vay, cha'logh boq'egh qav'ap motlh; chen qav'ap le'. ghajwI'vaD qav'ap le' yIDIl.* "If owned, pay owner twice the rental to which they are otherwise entitled."
(But it is proof that actual numbers aren't required in arithmetic expressions; as one might expect, it's possible to insert a word like *qav'ap* that has some numeric value that may be unspecified. Also, something I hadn't noticed before: evidently *DIl* can be used to mean "pay (the amount paid)," and not just the gloss of "pay for,"
How so? {qav'ap} "rent" is a thing that you pay for. You're paying for rent, not for the amount of the rent (though this happens to be how much you have to pay). so you might say *Duj vIje'meH wa' 'uy' DarSeq vIDIlpu'* "I paid one
million darseks to buy the ship."
I don't think that's right. That says that you paid for one million darseks (i.e., you bought one million darseks, using something else). -- De'vID
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 4:55 AM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 21:07, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
No surprises on the use of* -logh* in MKE: It says *Duj ghajchugh vay, cha'logh boq'egh qav'ap motlh; chen qav'ap le'. ghajwI'vaD qav'ap le' yIDIl.* "If owned, pay owner twice the rental to which they are otherwise entitled."
(But it is proof that actual numbers aren't required in arithmetic expressions; as one might expect, it's possible to insert a word like *qav'ap* that has some numeric value that may be unspecified. Also, something I hadn't noticed before: evidently *DIl* can be used to mean "pay (the amount paid)," and not just the gloss of "pay for,"
How so? {qav'ap} "rent" is a thing that you pay for. You're paying for rent, not for the amount of the rent (though this happens to be how much you have to pay).
The translation on the card makes it clear the amount paid is the thing that's being doubled. I have heard "rental" (but never "rent") used as a noun to mean the thing paid for, i.e. the use of a property for a period of time, but that's not what the Monopoly card means. If it meant the thing you pay for is doubled, you'd get to stay an extra turn, right? The KLI New Words List gives the gloss as "rent, cost, price, value," all words that indicate an amount of money to pay for a thing or that the amount a thing is supposedly worth.
so you might say *Duj vIje'meH wa' 'uy' DarSeq vIDIlpu'* "I paid one
million darseks to buy the ship."
I don't think that's right. That says that you paid for one million darseks (i.e., you bought one million darseks, using something else).
That's what I thought until yesterday. My takeaway from the Monopoly card is the object can be either, but not the person being paid, who would still take *-vaD*. ~mIp'av
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 18:04, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 4:55 AM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 21:07, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
No surprises on the use of* -logh* in MKE: It says *Duj ghajchugh vay, cha'logh boq'egh qav'ap motlh; chen qav'ap le'. ghajwI'vaD qav'ap le' yIDIl.* "If owned, pay owner twice the rental to which they are otherwise entitled."
(But it is proof that actual numbers aren't required in arithmetic expressions; as one might expect, it's possible to insert a word like *qav'ap* that has some numeric value that may be unspecified. Also, something I hadn't noticed before: evidently *DIl* can be used to mean "pay (the amount paid)," and not just the gloss of "pay for,"
How so? {qav'ap} "rent" is a thing that you pay for. You're paying for rent, not for the amount of the rent (though this happens to be how much you have to pay).
The translation on the card makes it clear the amount paid is the thing that's being doubled. I have heard "rental" (but never "rent") used as a noun to mean the thing paid for, i.e. the use of a property for a period of time, but that's not what the Monopoly card means.
The expression "pay the rental" is a common shorthand for "pay the rental fee". {qav'ap} is consistently translated as "rent" on the property cards. I think you're being misled by the translation, because the English word "pay" can mean both "pay for" and "pay out". The fact that the fee you have to pay *for* is doubled means that the amount you have to pay *out* is also doubled, but it does not mean that the same verb is necessarily used for both.
If it meant the thing you pay for is doubled, you'd get to stay an extra turn, right?
No, the rental fee being doubled just means you're paying twice as much as you normally would. This is what it says on the ship card: {qa'vap}: 25 {2 Dujmey lughajlu'chugh}: 50 rent: 25 if two vessels are owned: 50 There's no implication that the fee being doubled means anything other than that you pay double the amount for the same service.
The KLI New Words List gives the gloss as "rent, cost, price, value," all words that indicate an amount of money to pay for a thing or that the amount a thing is supposedly worth.
AFAIK, those definitions were not provided in the game, but is someone's guess at what the word means. (That guess may well be right, but they go beyond what's actually necessary to explain the usage in the game.) The game itself is consistent in using "rent" for {qav'ap} and {nob} as the verb to pay out an amount: {qav'ap DIl}, but {vaghmaH QaS nob}. It *may* be that you could say {vaghmaH QaS DIl} to say "pay out 50 troops" (rather than "pay for 50 troops"), but that is not how it's used in the game. In the game, you {DIl} a {qav'ap} by {nob}ing some amount of {QaS}. -- De'vID
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 7:02 PM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 18:04, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 4:55 AM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 21:07, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
No surprises on the use of* -logh* in MKE: It says *Duj ghajchugh vay, cha'logh boq'egh qav'ap motlh; chen qav'ap le'. ghajwI'vaD qav'ap le' yIDIl.* "If owned, pay owner twice the rental to which they are otherwise entitled."
(But it is proof that actual numbers aren't required in arithmetic expressions; as one might expect, it's possible to insert a word like *qav'ap* that has some numeric value that may be unspecified. Also, something I hadn't noticed before: evidently *DIl* can be used to mean "pay (the amount paid)," and not just the gloss of "pay for,"
How so? {qav'ap} "rent" is a thing that you pay for. You're paying for rent, not for the amount of the rent (though this happens to be how much you have to pay).
The translation on the card makes it clear the amount paid is the thing that's being doubled. I have heard "rental" (but never "rent") used as a noun to mean the thing paid for, i.e. the use of a property for a period of time, but that's not what the Monopoly card means.
The expression "pay the rental" is a common shorthand for "pay the rental fee". {qav'ap} is consistently translated as "rent" on the property cards. I think you're being misled by the translation, because the English word "pay" can mean both "pay for" and "pay out". The fact that the fee you have to pay *for* is doubled means that the amount you have to pay *out* is also doubled, but it does not mean that the same verb is necessarily used for both.
If it meant the thing you pay for is doubled, you'd get to stay an extra turn, right?
No, the rental fee being doubled just means you're paying twice as much as you normally would.
This is what it says on the ship card:
{qa'vap}: 25 {2 Dujmey lughajlu'chugh}: 50
rent: 25 if two vessels are owned: 50
There's no implication that the fee being doubled means anything other than that you pay double the amount for the same service.
This was my point. The thing being doubled, *qav'ap*, is the amount to be paid, not the thing being paid for. Therefore, the object of *DIl* in *ghajwI'vaD qav'ap le' yIDIl* is still the amount paid, not the thing being paid for.
The KLI New Words List gives the gloss as "rent, cost, price, value," all words that indicate an amount of money to pay for a thing or that the amount a thing is supposedly worth.
AFAIK, those definitions were not provided in the game, but is someone's guess at what the word means. (That guess may well be right, but they go beyond what's actually necessary to explain the usage in the game.) The game itself is consistent in using "rent" for {qav'ap} and {nob} as the verb to pay out an amount: {qav'ap DIl}, but {vaghmaH QaS nob}. It *may* be that you could say {vaghmaH QaS DIl} to say "pay out 50 troops" (rather than "pay for 50 troops"), but that is not how it's used in the game. In the game, you {DIl} a {qav'ap} by {nob}ing some amount of {QaS}.
But here you make a good point that convinces me not to use *DIl* to mean "pay (money)." Klingon apparently makes a distinction between price as a specified amount, like *wa''uy' DarSeq*, and price as the idea of an amount demanded, requested, offered, or agreed upon, called *qav'ap*. You can equate the two by saying something like *wa''uy' DarSeq 'oH qav'ap'e'* "The price is one million darseks" but, as you point out, you still *nob* the specified amount when you *DIl* the price (as the idea of the amount agreed upon) or when you *DIl* the thing you're buying. I expect *ghogh'ot* "bill" is also something you *DIl*. This distinction also appears in English, somewhat differently. With "price" as its object, "give" can mean either "pay" or "propose," depending on context and wording: "I gave him the price he asked." "If you want this car, I'll give you a good price." ~mIp'av
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 at 03:30, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 7:02 PM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
There's no implication that the fee being doubled means anything other than that you pay double the amount for the same service.
This was my point. The thing being doubled, *qav'ap*, is the amount to be paid, not the thing being paid for. Therefore, the object of *DIl* in *ghajwI'vaD qav'ap le' yIDIl* is still the amount paid, not the thing being paid for.
The thing being doubled, {qav'ap} (the rent, or rental fee), is not what one would normally think of as being "paid for" *in English*, because English distinguishes between paying "for" some things versus paying (no "for") other things (typically a debt, bill, or fee). Actually, English is inconsistent because you *can* say "pay for" rent or a fee in some contexts, such as "I'll pay [for] your rent", "I pay [for] my children's phone bills", "I pay $500 [for] rent", but you normally say "I pay rent" instead of "I pay for rent" (unless it's in a context like "I pay for rent and you pay for utilities"). In Klingon, {DIl} appears to be the verb one uses for both paying for something (to obtain it) and paying (for) a debt, bill, or fee. The object of {DIl} is the *reason* you're paying. It's just that English adds the preposition "for" in some cases but not others. What you pay out is then the object of {nob}. In *Klingon*, one "pays for" ({DIl}) the rent, just as one "pays for" food. When Okrand wrote the English definition of {DIl}, he was being succinct in defining it as "pay for". That just means that the subject is paying, and the object is the reason for the payment. It doesn't mean that {DIl} is used exactly in those situations in English where "for" is used with "pay" and not otherwise, which English is somewhat inconsistent about.
AFAIK, those definitions were not provided in the game, but is someone's
guess at what the word means. (That guess may well be right, but they go beyond what's actually necessary to explain the usage in the game.) The game itself is consistent in using "rent" for {qav'ap} and {nob} as the verb to pay out an amount: {qav'ap DIl}, but {vaghmaH QaS nob}. It *may* be that you could say {vaghmaH QaS DIl} to say "pay out 50 troops" (rather than "pay for 50 troops"), but that is not how it's used in the game. In the game, you {DIl} a {qav'ap} by {nob}ing some amount of {QaS}.
But here you make a good point that convinces me not to use *DIl* to mean "pay (money)." Klingon apparently makes a distinction between price as a specified amount, like *wa''uy' DarSeq*, and price as the idea of an amount demanded, requested, offered, or agreed upon, called *qav'ap*.
I think you're making this more complicated than it has to be. The object of {DIl} is the reason you're paying something (whether it's an amount or not), and the object of {nob} is the thing you're giving out (whether it's an amount or not). You *can* state an amount as the object of {DIl}, but it would mean that you're "paying for" that amount (i.e., you're paying in order to obtain that amount). {vaghmaH QaS vIDIlmeH Duj vInob} "in order to pay for 50 troops, I give a ship", "I pay a ship for 50 troops", seems to me to be a pretty clear sentence with no confusion as to what I'm paying out and what reason I'm paying (what I'm paying for), {qav'ap vIDIlmeH wa' 'uy' DarSeq vInob} "I pay one million darseks for rent" {wa' 'uy' DarSeq vIDIlmeH qav'ap vInob} "I pay the fee [cost, price, value, or whatever {qav'ap} means] for one million darseks". That is, I'm purchasing one million darseks, and I'm paying out an unspecified {qav'ap}, perhaps a billion Federation credits (or whatever the exchange rate is). I don't think the distinction you're drawing between a fee in the abstract and a specific amount is justified or necessitated by how {DIl} has been used in canon.
You can equate the two by saying something like *wa''uy' DarSeq 'oH qav'ap'e'* "The price is one million darseks" but, as you point out, you still *nob* the specified amount when you *DIl* the price (as the idea of the amount agreed upon) or when you *DIl* the thing you're buying. I expect *ghogh'ot* "bill" is also something you *DIl*.
{ghogh'ot}, {rup}, {qav'ap} and even {mab} would be things I expect are typical objects of {DIl}. This is despite the fact that in English, you typically say "pay a bill" or "pay a fine" (not "pay for a bill" or "pay for a fine").
This distinction also appears in English, somewhat differently. With "price" as its object, "give" can mean either "pay" or "propose," depending on context and wording: "I gave him the price he asked." "If you want this car, I'll give you a good price."
Right. In Klingon, this sense of "give" cannot be {nob} and would have to be something like {chup}. -- De'vID
participants (8)
-
Alan Anderson -
Daniel Dadap -
De'vID -
Ed Bailey -
Jeffrey Clark -
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
Will Martin