new word {pal'ar} "kinsperson, family member"
In the first edition of the paq'batlh, the word {qorDu'} was used in some places to translate "kin", including sometimes using the suffixes {-wI'} and {-lI'}. Dr. Okrand confirmed that this is an error as (normally) a family is not a being capable of language. However, its members might be, for which he provided a new word. (I'd posted an earlier conservation I had with Dr. Okrand about some of this back in March, in a post with the subject "inherently plural nouns and collection nouns for groups of people (in the paq'batlh)".) The following was in response to my observation that "kin" wasn't translated consistently throughout the paq'batlh (in an intermediate draft of the 2nd edition). I've edited his message slightly to add context (his original message only had the page and line numbers and not the quotations) and remove some comments not relevant to the topic of this message, with my edits in [brackets]. MO:
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the word “kin” in the English translations is, except for once, not used for family in general or family as a unit, but rather to refer to one person (Kahless’s brother or father) or sometimes two (brother and father) or maybe more — that is, it’s equivalent to “kinsperson” (if that’s a good English word) or “kinspersons.” When “kin” is referring to family in general or the family as a unit (not a collection of individuals), {qorDu’} is definitely correct. But {qorDu’} doesn’t seem right when referring to one or a number of family members. A better word for that is {pal’ar}.
More specifically: [(p. 61, line 12) {batlh Hegh qorDu'lI'} "your kin will die with honor"] Change {qorDu’lIj} to {pal’arpu’lI’}. The idea is that a bunch of family members will die, not that the family will no longer exist. (It’s also odd for a “family” — distinct from the members of a family — to die.) [(p. 63, line 13) {qorDu'Daj lon} "He leaves his kin"] Same deal. Morath is going away from where his family members are, so change {qorDu’Daj} to {pal’arpu’Daj). [(p. 71, line 2) {ghobchuq vavwI' loDnI' je} "battle between my kin"] Here English “my kin” (p. 70) is specific in Klingon ({vavwI’ loDnI’ je}. A {-wI’} seems to be missing after {loDnI’}, but rather than stick in that {-wI’}, we should change the phrase to {pal’arpu’wI’} to match the English. [(p. 87, line 14) {qorDu'wI' vIQan} "I will save my kin"] Change {qorDu’wIj} to {pal’arpu’wI’}. Here again “kin” means specifically Kahless’s father and brother. [(p. 107, line 5) {qeylIS qorDu' je} "Kahless and his kin"] Change {qorDu’} to {pal’arpu’Daj}. [snip] “kin” in this passage is referring only to Kanjit and Morath. [(p. 183, line 3) {qorDu'wIj vImuv} "to be with my kin"] Change {qorDu’wIj} to {pal’arpu’wI’}. (Same comment as for p. 107 [referring to the fact that "kin" refers to Kanjit and Morath].) [(p. 191, line 33) {qeylIS qorDu' je} "with his kin"] Change {qorDu’} to {pal’arpu’Daj}. [(p. 195, line 1) {vavlI' loDnI'lI' je DaSammeH} "in search of your kin"] Which brings us to p. 195, which was what prompted the question in the first place. I think, for consistency, it would be good to change {vavlI’ loDnI’lI’ je} to {pal’arpu’lI’}. {qorDu’} on p. 145 is used in the phrase “family honor,” which is fine. No reference to individual family members. (end of message) -- De'vID
What is the difference between pal'ar and chuD "people, kin, members of the same tribe/clan"? It seems that both could be used to refer to the relatives of a person. Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio ------- Original Message ------- On Friday, May 27th, 2022 at 07.22, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
In the first edition of the paq'batlh, the word {qorDu'} was used in some places to translate "kin", including sometimes using the suffixes {-wI'} and {-lI'}. Dr. Okrand confirmed that this is an error as (normally) a family is not a being capable of language. However, its members might be, for which he provided a new word. (I'd posted an earlier conservation I had with Dr. Okrand about some of this back in March, in a post with the subject "inherently plural nouns and collection nouns for groups of people (in the paq'batlh)".)
The following was in response to my observation that "kin" wasn't translated consistently throughout the paq'batlh (in an intermediate draft of the 2nd edition). I've edited his message slightly to add context (his original message only had the page and line numbers and not the quotations) and remove some comments not relevant to the topic of this message, with my edits in [brackets].
MO:
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the word “kin” in the English translations is, except for once, not used for family in general or family as a unit, but rather to refer to one person (Kahless’s brother or father) or sometimes two (brother and father) or maybe more — that is, it’s equivalent to “kinsperson” (if that’s a good English word) or “kinspersons.” When “kin” is referring to family in general or the family as a unit (not a collection of individuals), {qorDu’} is definitely correct. But {qorDu’} doesn’t seem right when referring to one or a number of family members. A better word for that is {pal’ar}.
More specifically:
[(p. 61, line 12) {batlh Hegh qorDu'lI'} "your kin will die with honor"] Change {qorDu’lIj} to {pal’arpu’lI’}. The idea is that a bunch of family members will die, not that the family will no longer exist. (It’s also odd for a “family” — distinct from the members of a family — to die.)
[(p. 63, line 13) {qorDu'Daj lon} "He leaves his kin"] Same deal. Morath is going away from where his family members are, so change {qorDu’Daj} to {pal’arpu’Daj).
[(p. 71, line 2) {ghobchuq vavwI' loDnI' je} "battle between my kin"] Here English “my kin” (p. 70) is specific in Klingon ({vavwI’ loDnI’ je}. A {-wI’} seems to be missing after {loDnI’}, but rather than stick in that {-wI’}, we should change the phrase to {pal’arpu’wI’} to match the English.
[(p. 87, line 14) {qorDu'wI' vIQan} "I will save my kin"] Change {qorDu’wIj} to {pal’arpu’wI’}. Here again “kin” means specifically Kahless’s father and brother.
[(p. 107, line 5) {qeylIS qorDu' je} "Kahless and his kin"] Change {qorDu’} to {pal’arpu’Daj}. [snip] “kin” in this passage is referring only to Kanjit and Morath.
[(p. 183, line 3) {qorDu'wIj vImuv} "to be with my kin"] Change {qorDu’wIj} to {pal’arpu’wI’}. (Same comment as for p. 107 [referring to the fact that "kin" refers to Kanjit and Morath].)
[(p. 191, line 33) {qeylIS qorDu' je} "with his kin"] Change {qorDu’} to {pal’arpu’Daj}.
[(p. 195, line 1) {vavlI' loDnI'lI' je DaSammeH} "in search of your kin"] Which brings us to p. 195, which was what prompted the question in the first place. I think, for consistency, it would be good to change {vavlI’ loDnI’lI’ je} to {pal’arpu’lI’}.
{qorDu’} on p. 145 is used in the phrase “family honor,” which is fine. No reference to individual family members. (end of message)
--
De'vID
On Fri, 27 May 2022 at 14:06, Iikka Hauhio <fergusq@protonmail.com> wrote:
What is the difference between *pal'ar *and *chuD* "people, kin, members of the same tribe/clan"? It seems that both could be used to refer to the relatives of a person.
{pal'ar} refers to a family member (a member of one's {qorDu'}). It refers to people related by blood (it's used in the paq'batlh to refer to Kahless' brother and father), and possibly also by marriage (though there's no usage to confirm the latter). {tuqnIgh} refers to a member of a Klingon House (a {tuq}). We've seen examples of Klingons joining the House of some who was not related by blood (e.g., Worf joining the House of Martok). {chuD} is more general and refers to a broader group. It's used in Star Trek Into Darkness, where it was used by Uhura, in speaking to a Klingon leader, to refer to the people who are with him. I don't think they were necessarily his blood relatives, though I suppose they might've been members of the same House. Uhura presumably doesn't know their exact relationship and might've been taking a guess or being deferential or something. -- De'vID
We seem to be looking for a clearly defined boundary for these terms, but my sense is that {chuD} might be as vague as saying, “My people”. It could be family, {tuq}, racial identity, religious affiliation… There might not be all that clear a definition beyond “people you identify with”. If someone insults {chuDlI’}, you get as ready to fight as if they were personally insulting you. It could be that simple. And the boundaries might move around depending on context. Like the Arab saying: "Myself against my brother. Myself and my brother against my cousin. Myself, my brother, and my cousin against the world." It might take nothing more than a common enemy to define the current context for {chuD}. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On May 27, 2022, at 8:33 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2022 at 14:06, Iikka Hauhio <fergusq@protonmail.com <mailto:fergusq@protonmail.com>> wrote: What is the difference between pal'ar and chuD "people, kin, members of the same tribe/clan"? It seems that both could be used to refer to the relatives of a person.
{pal'ar} refers to a family member (a member of one's {qorDu'}). It refers to people related by blood (it's used in the paq'batlh to refer to Kahless' brother and father), and possibly also by marriage (though there's no usage to confirm the latter).
{tuqnIgh} refers to a member of a Klingon House (a {tuq}). We've seen examples of Klingons joining the House of some who was not related by blood (e.g., Worf joining the House of Martok).
{chuD} is more general and refers to a broader group. It's used in Star Trek Into Darkness, where it was used by Uhura, in speaking to a Klingon leader, to refer to the people who are with him. I don't think they were necessarily his blood relatives, though I suppose they might've been members of the same House. Uhura presumably doesn't know their exact relationship and might've been taking a guess or being deferential or something.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
jIH:
But if the wife of someone is his {pal'ar} too, then obviously this word can't be defined as "relative". ghunchu'wI: Why not? Spouses are relatives. That's by explicit legal definition in many US jurisdictions, and by what I think is common sense everywhere
To be honest, I don't know how the term "relative" is legally defined in Greece, but I know for certain that if you say in Greek "my wife is a/my relative" then you'll be understood as if you are in an incestuous marriage. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
In the American South, what you, in Greece, call a “relative” is what we call a “blood relative”. There’s also the term “related by marriage”. Genealogy is apparently very important to many in the South, likely because so many white people are the poor descendants of plantation owners who lost everything in the Civil War. It’s important here to know of your links to greatness, if your actual life is not all that great. I don’t know the full range of the terms, but they include the likes of “second cousin, twice removed” and that sort of thing. My mother’s mother was descended from plantation owners in North Carolina. This was part of my decision to never have children of my own. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On May 28, 2022, at 10:05 AM, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
jIH:
But if the wife of someone is his {pal'ar} too, then obviously this word can't be defined as "relative". ghunchu'wI: Why not? Spouses are relatives. That's by explicit legal definition in many US jurisdictions, and by what I think is common sense everywhere
To be honest, I don't know how the term "relative" is legally defined in Greece, but I know for certain that if you say in Greek "my wife is a/my relative" then you'll be understood as if you are in an incestuous marriage.
-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ <https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/> Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
What is the difference between pal'ar and chuD "people, kin, members of the same tribe/clan"? It seems that both could be used to refer to the relatives of a person.
I expect «pal'ar» suggests a much closer family relationship. The word «chuD» was made up to translate the sentence "You and your people are in danger." in Star Trek Into Darkness (presumably with the restriction of having to match the lip movements used before the script change). Here, Uhura is addressing a Klingon she has just met, so "your people" is probably referring to Klingons in general, or at least Klingons that he feels some duty to protect. //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of Iikka Hauhio <fergusq@protonmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2022 2:06:36 PM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] new word {pal'ar} "kinsperson, family member" What is the difference between pal'ar and chuD "people, kin, members of the same tribe/clan"? It seems that both could be used to refer to the relatives of a person. Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio ------- Original Message ------- On Friday, May 27th, 2022 at 07.22, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote: In the first edition of the paq'batlh, the word {qorDu'} was used in some places to translate "kin", including sometimes using the suffixes {-wI'} and {-lI'}. Dr. Okrand confirmed that this is an error as (normally) a family is not a being capable of language. However, its members might be, for which he provided a new word. (I'd posted an earlier conservation I had with Dr. Okrand about some of this back in March, in a post with the subject "inherently plural nouns and collection nouns for groups of people (in the paq'batlh)".) The following was in response to my observation that "kin" wasn't translated consistently throughout the paq'batlh (in an intermediate draft of the 2nd edition). I've edited his message slightly to add context (his original message only had the page and line numbers and not the quotations) and remove some comments not relevant to the topic of this message, with my edits in [brackets]. MO:
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the word “kin” in the English translations is, except for once, not used for family in general or family as a unit, but rather to refer to one person (Kahless’s brother or father) or sometimes two (brother and father) or maybe more — that is, it’s equivalent to “kinsperson” (if that’s a good English word) or “kinspersons.” When “kin” is referring to family in general or the family as a unit (not a collection of individuals), {qorDu’} is definitely correct. But {qorDu’} doesn’t seem right when referring to one or a number of family members. A better word for that is {pal’ar}.
More specifically: [(p. 61, line 12) {batlh Hegh qorDu'lI'} "your kin will die with honor"] Change {qorDu’lIj} to {pal’arpu’lI’}. The idea is that a bunch of family members will die, not that the family will no longer exist. (It’s also odd for a “family” — distinct from the members of a family — to die.) [(p. 63, line 13) {qorDu'Daj lon} "He leaves his kin"] Same deal. Morath is going away from where his family members are, so change {qorDu’Daj} to {pal’arpu’Daj). [(p. 71, line 2) {ghobchuq vavwI' loDnI' je} "battle between my kin"] Here English “my kin” (p. 70) is specific in Klingon ({vavwI’ loDnI’ je}. A {-wI’} seems to be missing after {loDnI’}, but rather than stick in that {-wI’}, we should change the phrase to {pal’arpu’wI’} to match the English. [(p. 87, line 14) {qorDu'wI' vIQan} "I will save my kin"] Change {qorDu’wIj} to {pal’arpu’wI’}. Here again “kin” means specifically Kahless’s father and brother. [(p. 107, line 5) {qeylIS qorDu' je} "Kahless and his kin"] Change {qorDu’} to {pal’arpu’Daj}. [snip] “kin” in this passage is referring only to Kanjit and Morath. [(p. 183, line 3) {qorDu'wIj vImuv} "to be with my kin"] Change {qorDu’wIj} to {pal’arpu’wI’}. (Same comment as for p. 107 [referring to the fact that "kin" refers to Kanjit and Morath].) [(p. 191, line 33) {qeylIS qorDu' je} "with his kin"] Change {qorDu’} to {pal’arpu’Daj}. [(p. 195, line 1) {vavlI' loDnI'lI' je DaSammeH} "in search of your kin"] Which brings us to p. 195, which was what prompted the question in the first place. I think, for consistency, it would be good to change {vavlI’ loDnI’lI’ je} to {pal’arpu’lI’}. {qorDu’} on p. 145 is used in the phrase “family honor,” which is fine. No reference to individual family members. (end of message) -- De'vID
Would a grandfather, aunt, cousin, nephew, etc be consider a {pal'ar}? Or is it father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister and that's it? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On Fri, 27 May 2022 at 14:39, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Would a grandfather, aunt, cousin, nephew, etc be consider a {pal'ar}? Or is it father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister and that's it?
Are they considered a part of one's {qorDu'}? If so, then yes. -- De'vID
De'vID:
Are they considered a part of one's {qorDu'}? If so, then yes.
I don't know. Good question. The way I understand the Greek word for "family" is parents and kids only. But looking up the English "family" in Merriam-Webster I saw other definitions too, which could expand the "strict" meaning of the word to include cousins, aunts, etc. On the other hand, I don't know how Greek dictionaries define the word, so go figure. All that aside -and correct me if I'm wrong- the husband *is* a {pal'ar} to his wife and vice versa, my point being that to be a {pal'ar} you don't have to be blood related to someone. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
The family boundaries might be quite complex. Considering the Klingon cross-cousin system it's possible that they consider tey' to be a part of the family and lor to not be. Okrand has supported this by noting that people are more close to their tey' than their lor. Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio ------- Original Message ------- On Friday, May 27th, 2022 at 16.04, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
Are they considered a part of one's {qorDu'}? If so, then yes.
I don't know. Good question.
The way I understand the Greek word for "family" is parents and kids only. But looking up the English "family" in Merriam-Webster I saw other definitions too, which could expand the "strict" meaning of the word to include cousins, aunts, etc. On the other hand, I don't know how Greek dictionaries define the word, so go figure.
All that aside -and correct me if I'm wrong- the husband *is* a {pal'ar} to his wife and vice versa, my point being that to be a {pal'ar} you don't have to be blood related to someone.
-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
When I first read about this word, I was excited thinking that we have a word for "relative". But if the wife of someone is his {pal'ar} too, then obviously this word can't be defined as "relative". Perhaps the way I need to understand it is "whoever is considered by someone to be a part of his family, however the jay' this someone perceives the term family, regardless of whether there's a blood relation or not". And of course, another question can be raised too. Is a child who abandoned his parents still a {pal'ar}? Or maybe even is a much loved pet a {pal'ar}? Perhaps it's a concept resembling a rubber band. One can stretch and stretch it as long as he thinks it isn't ready to break. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 9:40 AM D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
When I first read about this word, I was excited thinking that we have a word for "relative".
But if the wife of someone is his {pal'ar} too, then obviously this word can't be defined as "relative".
Why not? Spouses are relatives. That's by explicit legal definition in many US jurisdictions, and by what I think is common sense everywhere. How would one define a relative in a way that excludes a spouse, but includes in-laws? -- ghunchu'wI'
participants (6)
-
Alan Anderson -
D qunen'oS -
De'vID -
Felix Malmenbeck -
Iikka Hauhio -
Will Martin