In klingon, does the verb {ngagh} apply only to animals ? Can a man {ngagh} with a woman ? Or is it, that for sex between humans, only the verb {nga'chuq} can be used ? ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 12/18/2019 8:06 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
In klingon, does the verb {ngagh} apply only to animals ?
Can a man {ngagh} with a woman ? Or is it, that for sex between humans, only the verb {nga'chuq} can be used ?
Dajanglu'meH yapbe'law' De'. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Here’s what I have in my notes (omitting several years’ worth of speculation): ngagh mate with (v) targhlIj yIngagh! yIruch! Go mate with your *targ*! (PK) AFAIK {ngagh} is not used in the paq’batlh. (st.expertforum 7/1998): Seems to me that the phrase that best fills in the blank (“I cannot be insulted by (a) [tribble f----r]”) is the one suggested a while back by both SuStel and Qermaq: {yIH ngaghwI'} (I'd leave the "a" in the English: “I cannot be insulted by a {yIH ngaghwI'}.”) If this is translated as “one who mates with a tribble,” perhaps it sounds too formal or clinical (in English, not in Klingon) to function as a curse or insult. If it's translated “tribble mater-wither” or something like that, it has a somewhat better tone, but it's questionable English and therefore lacks punch. But English isn't the issue here; Klingon is, and, unless I'm missing the point, {yIH ngaghwI'} should work. I trust that, in the story, the Federation officer who utters the phrase is prepared for what the Klingon may do next. (Holtej, [date?]): In TKH [“The Klingon Hamlet”], the line “Get thee to a nunnery” was translated as *{ngaghQo'wI' nawlogh yImuv}. Guido's endnotes translate it as “squadron of the celibate,” and further expound: “the closest Klingon equivalent of a monastic order, these were bands of warriors--of either gender--who dedicated their lives to fighting, to the point of refusing to mate." nga'chuq sex (i.e. perform sex, always subject) (v) nItebHa' yIntaHmeH Sanchaj luqaD nItebHa' SuvlI' ghIq QavwI'chaj DuQchu' qeylIS betleH chaHDaq SIStaHvIS negh 'Iw nga'chuq nga'chuq nga'chuq Fighting side by side Against the odds For survival together. Then Kahless’s bat'leth Pierced the last of them, Showered with the soldiers’ blood. They mated, They mated, They mated. [i.e. Kahless and Lukara, PB p.137] (De'vID, 1/14/2014): I also have a small tidbit of info regarding (our lack of) sex terminology in Klingon. Marc told me that the reason Maltz might seem like a prude is because he's trying to fit in with the culture he's found himself in. (We had a discussion on the grammar of {nga'chuq} because of the Stonewall campaign.) That is, in-universe, Klingons in general have no problems talking about sex and other bodily functions, unlike Humans, but Maltz is reluctant to talk about sex for reasons specific to himself. My out-of-universe interpretation of this is that Marc is constrained in what he can say about sexual terminology because he's required, or perhaps feels he is required, to keep the Klingon language "family friendly" -- at least to the degree that swear words "defy explanation", violence is kept at a Trek-appropriate almost cartoonish level, and "mating" is referred to only in the context of an institution which is somewhat like marriage ("She was my mate!") or in quasi-comical insults ("Go mate with your targ!"). I guess he also has to leave open the possibility that the Star Trek writers may later contradict whatever he reveals about this issue, since they have operated thus far under the same set of "family friendly" constraints. (De’vID, 3/14/2016): I had a chat with MO about {nga'chuq}. Informal chat, off the record, so not officially canon, but he confirmed that all participants are in the subject, which must be plural, and that the sex or gender of the participants don't matter. (That is, it differs from the English sex verbs in which the subject is the [active] giver and the object is the [passive] recipient. Apparently, everyone involved in a Klingon sex act are presumed to be equally active participants.) (De’vID, 3/22/2019): A discussion about {nga'chuq} came up on Facebook. Okrand confirmed this interpretation to me (that the subject of this verb must be plural, and are engaged in sexual intercourse with each other) in July 2013 when we had a brief chat about the Stonewall campaign. lInchuq share each other (v) (qepHom 2016) (Lieven, 11/07/2016): There is an idiomatic expression: {lInchuq} “share each other”. This is not a euphemism, but Maltz admitted it's a little risqué. {lInchuq} (“they share each other”) means that they (whoever is being talked about) have a physical relationship of some sort. The phrase is general — it doesn't imply anything about exactly what they do physically. It also doesn't necessarily mean that they are doing something right now (at the time of speaking). The relationship could be relatively light (a little nibbling) or heavier (really biting) or beyond (Maltz thought that Terrans might find that part a bit risqué). As with other verbs with {-chuq}, the prefix has to indicate a plural subject and no object: {malInchuq}, {SulInchuq}. Since Klingons aren’t as prudish as Humans, I seriously doubt they use euphemisms. Worf certainly didn’t when he discovered that his anthropologist brother had married and impregnated an alien female: “How could you mate with a Boraalan?!” (Worf to Nikolai Rozhenko, TNG “Homeward”) -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons ________________________________________________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of mayqel qunen'oS In klingon, does the verb {ngagh} apply only to animals ? Can a man {ngagh} with a woman ? Or is it, that for sex between humans, only the verb {nga'chuq} can be used ?
ok, I see.. But {ngagh} aside.. In english, do you use the verb "to mate" for humans ? Or is it primarily used for animals ? ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:06 AM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
ok, I see..
But {ngagh} aside..
In english, do you use the verb "to mate" for humans ?
Or is it primarily used for animals ?
I'd say "to mate" is mostly used for animals. You can use it in reference to people, but to me, it sounds either detached and clinical (as if you were referring to people as some sort of livestock or wildlife), goofy (as if you wanted to use a stronger word than "sex" but wouldn't let yourself go for the f-word), or insulting (as if you wanted to refer to someone's sex partner as a beast of some kind). In Klingon, from the example of {yIH ngaghwI'}, it seems that you can use {ngagh} to refer to people, but it probably has more vulgar overtones than {nga'chuq}. (For instance, you might use it in the chorus of {Sumqu'} by {vI' jav jav 'uj 'abbogh Hut'Inmey'e'}: {qangagh vIneH, Ha'DIbaH vIrur vIneH.})
On 12/18/2019 10:27 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:06 AM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote:
ok, I see..
But {ngagh} aside..
In english, do you use the verb "to mate" for humans ?
Or is it primarily used for animals ?
I'd say "to mate" is mostly used for animals. You can use it in reference to people, but to me, it sounds either detached and clinical (as if you were referring to people as some sort of livestock or wildlife),
In English, intransitive /mate/ tends to be used only for wildlife, and it means to copulate. Transitive /mate/ can be used for livestock, meaning the person causes the animals to breed. It is rarely used to refer to people.
In Klingon, from the example of {yIH ngaghwI'}, it seems that you can use {ngagh} to refer to people, but it probably has more vulgar overtones than {nga'chuq}. (For instance, you might use it in the chorus of {Sumqu'} by {vI' jav jav 'uj 'abbogh Hut'Inmey'e'}: {qangagh vIneH, Ha'DIbaH vIrur vIneH.})
I think *yIH ngaghwI'* is insulting because it brings the target of the insult down to the level of an animal. But whether that's because *ngagh* is for animals and *nga'chuq* is for people or just because you're talking about doing it with a *yIH,* I don't know. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:06 AM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
ok, I see..
But {ngagh} aside..
In english, do you use the verb "to mate" for humans ?
In Star Trek, "mate" is used to refer to what Klingons do with each other several times throughout the different series. We hear things like "mating ritual", "she was my mate" and "we have mated" And Okrand continues it in Power Klingon with things like "Of course the most universal coming of age ceremony in any part of the Galaxy, is the mating ritual", "These signs are unambiguous, and they derive from the hasty mating that took place during battle", "If you *are* interested in reciprocating, or wish to initiate mating proceedings". Klingons mate. Humans mate too. They might label it "making love", "having sex", "shagging", "doing it", "making the beast with two backs" or something else to try to differentiate it from what the rest of the biological world does, but it's still mating. Or is it primarily used for animals ?
Humans and Klingons *are *animals. qurgh
On 12/18/2019 12:24 PM, qurgh lungqIj wrote:
Klingons mate. Humans mate too. They might label it "making love", "having sex", "shagging", "doing it", "making the beast with two backs" or something else to try to differentiate it from what the rest of the biological world does, but it's still mating.
Sure, but what we're interested in is labels, or words. Outside of a science-fiction context, nobody speaking modern English says /mate/ to refer to people having sex. *ngagh* and *nga'chuq* seems to refer to basically the same sort of act. The question is, do they get more specific?
Or is it primarily used for animals ?
Humans and Klingons *are *animals.
But languages usually distinguish between people and non-people, and Klingon basically does this in its capable-of-using-language suffixes and its pronouns. The distinction here may be important in Klingon. It is in English. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 12:50 PM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/18/2019 12:24 PM, qurgh lungqIj wrote:
Klingons mate. Humans mate too. They might label it "making love", "having sex", "shagging", "doing it", "making the beast with two backs" or something else to try to differentiate it from what the rest of the biological world does, but it's still mating.
Sure, but what we're interested in is labels, or words. Outside of a science-fiction context, nobody speaking modern English says *mate* to refer to people having sex.
I know people who speak modern English and use mate to refer to people having sex outside of sci-fi. You really shouldn't make generalizations about a billion and a half people unless you personally know them all.
*ngagh* and *nga'chuq* seems to refer to basically the same sort of act. The question is, do they get more specific?
Apparently not. I believe the difference between the two is that {ngagh} refers to one person doing the act to another person who may or may not be an active (or even willing) participant, while {nga'chuq} refers to two, or more, people performing the act in a joint fashion: "I shagged her" verses "We shagged". This is personal head canon though. Or is it primarily used for animals ?
Humans and Klingons *are *animals.
But languages usually distinguish between people and non-people, and Klingon basically does this in its capable-of-using-language suffixes and its pronouns. The distinction here may be important in Klingon. It is in English.
But often Klingon does the opposite of what languages usually do. If something is important to English, it's probably not important for Klingon. I don't think Klingon uses those suffixes and pronouns to distinguish between "people" and "non-people", but between if the speaker believes that "thing" can, or cannot, communicate with them. Something could consider itself "people" but lack the ability to communicate that to a Klingon speaker, or a Klingon speaker might misunderstand something as being communication when it's not. qurgh
On 12/18/2019 2:09 PM, qurgh lungqIj wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 12:50 PM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
On 12/18/2019 12:24 PM, qurgh lungqIj wrote:
Klingons mate. Humans mate too. They might label it "making love", "having sex", "shagging", "doing it", "making the beast with two backs" or something else to try to differentiate it from what the rest of the biological world does, but it's still mating.
Sure, but what we're interested in is labels, or words. Outside of a science-fiction context, nobody speaking modern English says /mate/ to refer to people having sex.
I know people who speak modern English and use mate to refer to people having sex outside of sci-fi. You really shouldn't make generalizations about a billion and a half people unless you personally know them all.
I do. I know them all. Personally. I'll allow the exception that the socially awkward types who gravitate to science fiction and talk in a way that others consider weird might say that people /mate/ with each other outside of a science fiction context. But that's the exception that proves the rule: the way these people talk is considered weird. I'll also allow the possibility of anthropological jargon that might use the word that way. But not in a mainstream way. Can you give an example in which someone would non-weirdly talk about people mating?
Or is it primarily used for animals ?
Humans and Klingons *are *animals.
But languages usually distinguish between people and non-people, and Klingon basically does this in its capable-of-using-language suffixes and its pronouns. The distinction here may be important in Klingon. It is in English.
But often Klingon does the opposite of what languages usually do. If something is important to English, it's probably not important for Klingon.
This is demonstrably untrue. "Do the opposite of other languages" was not a design goal of Klingon. "Seem alien" was a design goal, but this mostly manifested in its unlikely sound inventory, its uncommon OVS syntax, and its color words. Far, far more often, Klingon works the SAME as other languages, especially English. Sometimes it does so so well it seems apparently that Okrand didn't even notice he was doing it until it was pointed out to him (e.g., the prefix trick). You simply can't judge Klingon grammar by assuming that however English handles something, Klingon does the opposite.
I don't think Klingon uses those suffixes and pronouns to distinguish between "people" and "non-people", but between if the speaker believes that "thing" can, or cannot, communicate with them.
Which is why I said Klingon "basically" does this. If we could divorce Klingon from Star Trek and speak it only in the real world, the difference between /capable of using language/ and /person/ would be almost zero. (Any exceptions are still only theoretical at this point.) A lot of the things we don't call people in the real world would be called people in the Star Trek universe. A horta, for instance, is a person. The actual list of things that are capable of language but are not people is small, and a lot of them are considered edge-cases. A starship computer, for instance: it's certainly not a person, but does it use language? I'd bet even Klingons would hesitate to answer that. So no, /capable of using language/ is not identical to /person,/ but neither is it very far away. It's certainly close enough to recognize that saying that "Humans and Klingons are animals" doesn't really address the question raised. WE are the ones who brought up the person-vs-animal argument of *ngagh/nga'chuq *as pure speculation; if you'd rather frame it as capable-of-using-language-vs-not-capable-of-using-language**argument of *ngagh/nga'chuq,* then do so.
Something could consider itself "people" but lack the ability to communicate that to a Klingon speaker, or a Klingon speaker might misunderstand something as being communication when it's not.
At this point you seem to be questioning the meaning of the word /people./ In a real-world dictionary you'll find that it means a human being. As I alluded to above, in a universe with Klingons, living rock-pizzas, energy beings, and sentient androids, the meanings of the words /person/ and /people/ will be a bit broader. Whether a Klingon correctly recognizes a thing as language-capable or not is the Klingon's problem, not the language's problem. "Wowee," said Zaphod, "Zappo." "Incredible!" breathed Arthur, "the people...! The things...!" "The things," said Ford Prefect quietly, "are also people." "The people..." resumed Arthur, "the... other people..." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 2:44 PM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote
So no, *capable of using language* is not identical to *person,* but neither is it very far away. It's certainly close enough to recognize that saying that "Humans and Klingons are animals" doesn't really address the question raised. WE are the ones who brought up the person-vs-animal argument of *ngagh/nga'chuq *as pure speculation; if you'd rather frame it as capable-of-using-language-vs-not-capable-of-using-language argument of *ngagh/nga'chuq,* then do so
I'd rather not frame it either way. I'd rather use the words to describe actions regardless of what my cultural or linguistic biases might try to dictate about those actions. I gave my opinion on the difference between the two words, but you ignored that part.
At this point you seem to be questioning the meaning of the word *people.*
At this point I question everything. qurgh
On 12/18/2019 3:45 PM, qurgh lungqIj wrote:
I'd rather not frame it either way. I'd rather use the words to describe actions regardless of what my cultural or linguistic biases might try to dictate about those actions.
Klingon is not a technical or programming language; it does not express objective truths beyond cultural or linguistic biases. It has those biases built in on purpose, and many of the words Okrand gives us come with some kind of cultural or linguistic note on their usage. There are things you can say in language that you're not /supposed/ to say. You can say "We am thy freighter, Urva," and get your point across, but you've said it wrong. You've chosen the wrong verb form, used an archaic pronoun, and chosen the wrong determiner. It's understandable, but it's not right. You can't always choose a synonym when that synonym isn't used the same way, even if it refers to the same action. Well, if we suppose for a moment that *nga'chuq* is used for people (or language-users, or whatever) and *ngagh* is used for animals (or non-language-users, or whatever), then saying *luqara ngagh qeylIS* is wrong. It's understandable, but it's the wrong verb. mayqel's question is are *ngagh* and *nga'chuq* split like that, is there some other difference, or is there no difference at all? The answer is we don't know. The English glosses aren't enough to determine this. The reason he probably thinks this might be the split is because in English /mate/ is something animals do, while /have sex/ is something people do, and this is how the glosses were given to us. Whether the Klingon usages of the words matches the English usages of those phrases, we don't know. Star Trek makes this determination even murkier, since aliens are often said to /mate/ with each other, while Terrans are not.
I gave my opinion on the difference between the two words, but you ignored that part.
You gave your speculation, for which you seem to agree we have no evidence. I didn't see any reason to comment on that. For your part, you ignored my request to provide an example of how someone in the mainstream would use the word /mate/ to refer to people having sex. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:06 PM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/18/2019 3:45 PM, qurgh lungqIj wrote:
I'd rather not frame it either way. I'd rather use the words to describe actions regardless of what my cultural or linguistic biases might try to dictate about those actions.
Klingon is not a technical or programming language; it does not express objective truths beyond cultural or linguistic biases. It has those biases built in on purpose, and many of the words Okrand gives us come with some kind of cultural or linguistic note on their usage.
Right, and I want to use ITS cultural and linguistic biases, not the ones I've been raised with in my language and culture. This is my personal choice. You do you, and I'll do me.
The answer is we don't know. The English glosses aren't enough to determine this. The reason he probably thinks this might be the split is because in English *mate* is something animals do, while *have sex* is something people do, and this is how the glosses were given to us. Whether the Klingon usages of the words matches the English usages of those phrases, we don't know. Star Trek makes this determination even murkier, since aliens are often said to *mate* with each other, while Terrans are not.
We do know that ngagh can refer to what "people" do, since we have {targhlIj yIngagh! yIruch!}. That's a clear example of one "person" telling another "person" to do an act with an "animal". To me, that usage seems to match with how we use the f-word, and is what led me to speculate that {ngagh} is what one thing does to another thing, regardless of if that thing would be classified as a "person" or an "animal".
You gave your speculation, for which you seem to agree we have no evidence. I didn't see any reason to comment on that. For your part, you ignored my request to provide an example of how someone in the mainstream would use the word *mate* to refer to people having sex.
I did, because it's totally off-topic and has nothing to do with the Klingon language. I have no interest in helping you locate information about English that you can locate yourself. Anyway, I have no interest in talking to you further. My original answers were to mayqel's questions. If he wants to continue the conversation, I will. qurgh
On 12/18/2019 4:17 PM, qurgh lungqIj wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:06 PM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
On 12/18/2019 3:45 PM, qurgh lungqIj wrote:
I'd rather not frame it either way. I'd rather use the words to describe actions regardless of what my cultural or linguistic biases might try to dictate about those actions.
Klingon is not a technical or programming language; it does not express objective truths beyond cultural or linguistic biases. It has those biases built in on purpose, and many of the words Okrand gives us come with some kind of cultural or linguistic note on their usage.
Right, and I want to use ITS cultural and linguistic biases, not the ones I've been raised with in my language and culture. This is my personal choice.
And I'm telling you you don't KNOW Klingon's cultural and linguistic biases because you're not a Klingon. We only know what we're told, and we haven't been told this.
We do know that ngagh can refer to what "people" do, since we have {targhlIj yIngagh! yIruch!}. That's a clear example of one "person" telling another "person" to do an act with an "animal".
And it's an insult. It's probably an insult because it lowers the person spoken to to the level of an animal. It's not evidence at all that *ngagh* is what people do, because you're linguistically transforming your target into an animal. We have other Klingon insults that do the same thing, like *Ha'DIbaH.* In other words, you're treating the target like a not-person. It's like using the non-language-using suffixes on a noun to refer to a language-using being. *HoDlIj* is insulting to the *HoD,* probably because you're implying the *HoD* is not capable of using language. Even though you know perfectly well that the *HoD* is quite capable of using language. You can't use *HoDlIj* in normal conversation, even if it's perfectly understandable. Likewise, *targhlIj yIngagh* may be lowering the target to the level of a targ. This sentence proves nothing about whether people can normally *ngagh.* All we know is that in that kind of insult, they can. But our knowledge is completely limited to that domain.
To me, that usage seems to match with how we use the f-word, and is what led me to speculate that {ngagh} is what one thing does to another thing, regardless of if that thing would be classified as a "person" or an "animal".
It only matches one sense of the f-word, and only loosely. The f-word has plenty of other meanings that, in the right context, are perfectly acceptable and don't match. In Klingon, *ngagh* appears to be usable by people in order to insult them, possibly by lowering them to the level of an animal, but can it be used outside of that sense? That's been the question all along. Can *ngagh* be used the same was as *nga'chuq* apparently can? We don't have evidence. We have lots of opinions, but no evidence.
You gave your speculation, for which you seem to agree we have no evidence. I didn't see any reason to comment on that. For your part, you ignored my request to provide an example of how someone in the mainstream would use the word /mate/ to refer to people having sex.
I did, because it's totally off-topic and has nothing to do with the Klingon language. I have no interest in helping you locate information about English that you can locate yourself.
There is another special-use word in English. Literally, it just refers to the dung of a male bovine. In this case it is an expression of disbelief that you are actually capable of backing up your statement. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 22:17, qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:06 PM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
The answer is we don't know. The English glosses aren't enough to determine this. The reason he probably thinks this might be the split is because in English *mate* is something animals do, while *have sex* is something people do, and this is how the glosses were given to us. Whether the Klingon usages of the words matches the English usages of those phrases, we don't know. Star Trek makes this determination even murkier, since aliens are often said to *mate* with each other, while Terrans are not.
We do know that ngagh can refer to what "people" do, since we have {targhlIj yIngagh! yIruch!}. That's a clear example of one "person" telling another "person" to do an act with an "animal". To me, that usage seems to match with how we use the f-word, and is what led me to speculate that {ngagh} is what one thing does to another thing, regardless of if that thing would be classified as a "person" or an "animal".
The example of {targhlIj yIngagh} tells us nothing about whether it's a verb that's *normally* used with "people", since the object is an animal and the entire sentence is intended to be an insult. It might be like "breed (with)" in English. It's normally used with animals, and if I were to tell a person to "go breed with [someone]", it would be insulting. We don't know whether the {targhlIj yIngagh} is insulting merely because the object is an animal, or if the verb used is also typically used only with animals. (By "animals", I mean non-people animals, of course.) In other words, I'd steer clear of saying {luqara' ngagh qeylIS} or {qeylIS ngagh luqara'} and say {nga'chuq qeylIS luqara' je}. -- De'vID
participants (6)
-
De'vID -
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
qurgh lungqIj -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel