Hey folks! Big bummer about the qep'a', but I remain hopeful that the positives of a virtual conference will make up for the obvious negatives. People who can't usually join due to financial or time constraints may get the opportunity to participate in whatever the forthcoming programming is. mapIlHa'be'jaj! Working on a project with Kyle Dillion, we brought a question to Maltz regarding the controversial *-lu'wI'. *Basically, we wanted to know if this was a grammatically sound construction. This is what Dr. Okrand had to say: --------Start--------- Regarding *-**lu'wI'* — I checked with Maltz. He said that for poetry (and maybe other literary forms), this sort of thing may occur from time to time, but it's not considered "normal" grammar. This is because the meaning of *-**lu'wI'* (from a Klingon point of view) is odd (but therefore occasionally appropriate for poetry and such). Leaving -*lu'* aside for a while… -*wI'* is defined in TKD as "one who is, one who does, thing which is, thing which does." In all cases, the subject of the verb (to which *-**wI'* is attached) is the doer or the "be-er," the one who performs the action (if it's that kind of verb) or carries or exhibits the characteristic (if it's that other kind of verb). The noun formed by adding *-**wI'* is equivalent to the subject of the verb to which *-**wI'* is attached (as far as meaning goes — not getting into fine points of grammatical description). *yItwI'* "walker" (the subject of *yIt* is the *yItwI'*) *qIpwI'* "hitter" (the subject of *qIp* is the *qIpwI'*) *wochwI'* "tall one" (the subject of *woch* is the *wochwI'*) When *-**lu'* enters the picture, things change. The subject of a verb with *-**lu'* is "unknown, indefinite, and/or general." Thus, *qIplu'* is "someone/something hits (someone or something)" or, conventionally but not really literally, "(someone/something) is hit." So *qIplu'wI'* would mean something like "indefinite hitter" or "unknown hitter" or "essence of hitter" or some such (if it means anything at all). It doesn't refer to the person (or thing) being hit because a *-* *wI'* noun is the perpetrator or instigator of an action (or carrier of a trait), not someone (or something) affected by an action. There may be instances (again, particularly in poetry) where the imagery or notion of an "unknown/indefinite/vague hitter" makes sense, though I can't conjure one up right now (and Maltz doesn't want to try). As for how to say "the hit one, someone who is hit" or "the one who is loved" -- This reminds me of a (pretty funny) book and movie from years ago called "The Loved One" (about the funeral industry in LA). Here, the phrase "the loved one," of course, is a euphemism used by the funeral director for "the deceased person," but the implication is that "the loved one" was loved by whomever the funeral director is talking to (or negotiating with) about the funeral — the deceased person is "the one you love(d)." Points to -*bogh*, I guess. --------End--------- Best, DeSDu'
Trying to imagine a setting in which {-lu’wI’} could make sense, even in a poetic fashion, I flashed on “the sound of one hand clapping”. We don’t know that Klingons clap hands. There’s no known vocabulary to describe it. But what about “The Sound of One Head, Butting”. The head that made that sound might be called {paw’lu’wI’}… I know it’s a stretch, but hey. What is poetry for, if not to stretch? charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On May 23, 2020, at 9:18 PM, Jackson Bradley <j.monroe.bradley@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey folks!
Big bummer about the qep'a', but I remain hopeful that the positives of a virtual conference will make up for the obvious negatives. People who can't usually join due to financial or time constraints may get the opportunity to participate in whatever the forthcoming programming is. mapIlHa'be'jaj!
Working on a project with Kyle Dillion, we brought a question to Maltz regarding the controversial -lu'wI'. Basically, we wanted to know if this was a grammatically sound construction.
This is what Dr. Okrand had to say:
--------Start---------
Regarding -lu'wI' —
I checked with Maltz. He said that for poetry (and maybe other literary forms), this sort of thing may occur from time to time, but it's not considered "normal" grammar. This is because the meaning of -lu'wI' (from a Klingon point of view) is odd (but therefore occasionally appropriate for poetry and such).
Leaving -lu' aside for a while…
-wI' is defined in TKD as "one who is, one who does, thing which is, thing which does." In all cases, the subject of the verb (to which -wI' is attached) is the doer or the "be-er," the one who performs the action (if it's that kind of verb) or carries or exhibits the characteristic (if it's that other kind of verb). The noun formed by adding -wI' is equivalent to the subject of the verb to which -wI' is attached (as far as meaning goes — not getting into fine points of grammatical description).
yItwI' "walker" (the subject of yIt is the yItwI')
qIpwI' "hitter" (the subject of qIp is the qIpwI')
wochwI' "tall one" (the subject of woch is the wochwI')
When -lu' enters the picture, things change. The subject of a verb with -lu' is "unknown, indefinite, and/or general." Thus, qIplu' is "someone/something hits (someone or something)" or, conventionally but not really literally, "(someone/something) is hit."
So qIplu'wI' would mean something like "indefinite hitter" or "unknown hitter" or "essence of hitter" or some such (if it means anything at all). It doesn't refer to the person (or thing) being hit because a -wI' noun is the perpetrator or instigator of an action (or carrier of a trait), not someone (or something) affected by an action.
There may be instances (again, particularly in poetry) where the imagery or notion of an "unknown/indefinite/vague hitter" makes sense, though I can't conjure one up right now (and Maltz doesn't want to try).
As for how to say "the hit one, someone who is hit" or "the one who is loved" --
This reminds me of a (pretty funny) book and movie from years ago called "The Loved One" (about the funeral industry in LA). Here, the phrase "the loved one," of course, is a euphemism used by the funeral director for "the deceased person," but the implication is that "the loved one" was loved by whomever the funeral director is talking to (or negotiating with) about the funeral — the deceased person is "the one you love(d)." Points to -bogh, I guess.
--------End---------
Best, DeSDu' _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
I could perhaps imagine a case where you wish to imply that the subject is inconsequential, or perhaps perceived as inconsequential by themselves or others. You might imagine a case where a security railing at a train station failed, and somebody was injured by a train that was being driven at high speed. In such a case, the bulk of the pity goes to the person injured, and the bulk of the blame goes to those in charge of security measures at the station ... but what consideration does that leave for the train driver? Such an accident is bound to have a strong emotional impact on them, even if it wasn't actually their fault - they just happened to be the person by whom the train was being driven. Or you might consider the case of a mother, who feels that nobody cares about them since the baby was born; all the focus is on the baby that was born, not on the person by whom it was birthed. Perhaps you could have a poem where you talk about the glory of an action that is undertaken, only to turn things about in the second half by focusing on the situation of the formerly unmentioned agent of the action. For example, you could start the poem off talking about why {Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam}, and then finish off by talking about the {Heghlu'wI'}. This could be done in support of the maxim (by highlighting the indeterminate identity of the {Heghlu'wI'}) or in order to satirize it (by implying that the {Heghlu'wI'} is commonly overlooked). //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 20:42 To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] -lu'wI' Trying to imagine a setting in which {-lu’wI’} could make sense, even in a poetic fashion, I flashed on “the sound of one hand clapping”. We don’t know that Klingons clap hands. There’s no known vocabulary to describe it. But what about “The Sound of One Head, Butting”. The head that made that sound might be called {paw’lu’wI’}… I know it’s a stretch, but hey. What is poetry for, if not to stretch? charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’. On May 23, 2020, at 9:18 PM, Jackson Bradley <j.monroe.bradley@gmail.com<mailto:j.monroe.bradley@gmail.com>> wrote: Hey folks! Big bummer about the qep'a', but I remain hopeful that the positives of a virtual conference will make up for the obvious negatives. People who can't usually join due to financial or time constraints may get the opportunity to participate in whatever the forthcoming programming is. mapIlHa'be'jaj! Working on a project with Kyle Dillion, we brought a question to Maltz regarding the controversial -lu'wI'. Basically, we wanted to know if this was a grammatically sound construction. This is what Dr. Okrand had to say: --------Start--------- Regarding -lu'wI' — I checked with Maltz. He said that for poetry (and maybe other literary forms), this sort of thing may occur from time to time, but it's not considered "normal" grammar. This is because the meaning of -lu'wI' (from a Klingon point of view) is odd (but therefore occasionally appropriate for poetry and such). Leaving -lu' aside for a while… -wI' is defined in TKD as "one who is, one who does, thing which is, thing which does." In all cases, the subject of the verb (to which -wI' is attached) is the doer or the "be-er," the one who performs the action (if it's that kind of verb) or carries or exhibits the characteristic (if it's that other kind of verb). The noun formed by adding -wI' is equivalent to the subject of the verb to which -wI' is attached (as far as meaning goes — not getting into fine points of grammatical description). yItwI' "walker" (the subject of yIt is the yItwI') qIpwI' "hitter" (the subject of qIp is the qIpwI') wochwI' "tall one" (the subject of woch is the wochwI') When -lu' enters the picture, things change. The subject of a verb with -lu' is "unknown, indefinite, and/or general." Thus, qIplu' is "someone/something hits (someone or something)" or, conventionally but not really literally, "(someone/something) is hit." So qIplu'wI' would mean something like "indefinite hitter" or "unknown hitter" or "essence of hitter" or some such (if it means anything at all). It doesn't refer to the person (or thing) being hit because a -wI' noun is the perpetrator or instigator of an action (or carrier of a trait), not someone (or something) affected by an action. There may be instances (again, particularly in poetry) where the imagery or notion of an "unknown/indefinite/vague hitter" makes sense, though I can't conjure one up right now (and Maltz doesn't want to try). As for how to say "the hit one, someone who is hit" or "the one who is loved" -- This reminds me of a (pretty funny) book and movie from years ago called "The Loved One" (about the funeral industry in LA). Here, the phrase "the loved one," of course, is a euphemism used by the funeral director for "the deceased person," but the implication is that "the loved one" was loved by whomever the funeral director is talking to (or negotiating with) about the funeral — the deceased person is "the one you love(d)." Points to -bogh, I guess. --------End--------- Best, DeSDu' _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org<mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 5/26/2020 3:39 PM, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:
I could perhaps imagine a case where you wish to imply that the subject is inconsequential, or perhaps perceived as inconsequential by themselves or others.
But are we talking about an inconsequential subject? *-lu'* expresses an indefinite subject, not an inconsequential one. It might be that the subject isn't expressed definitely because it is inconsequential, but it might also be because the subject is just unknown or unclear, or that the /expression/ of the subject is inconsequential, even if the subject itself isn't inconsequential. *Qang gheSlu'chugh, wo' che'lu'.* /If one assumes the duties of chancellor, one rules the Empire./
For example, you could start the poem off talking about why {Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam}, and then finish off by talking about the {Heghlu'wI'}. This could be done in support of the maxim (by highlighting the indeterminate identity of the {Heghlu'wI'}) or in order to satirize it (by implying that the {Heghlu'wI'} is commonly overlooked).
Except for deliberately paralleling the syntax of the proverb (which once might try to do in poetry), I can't see any reason why you wouldn't just refer to the *HeghwI'*/one who dies./ Like Okrand, I can't think of any non-poetic reason why the combination of *-lu'* and *-wI'* would be of any use. *Qang gheSlu'chugh, wo' che' gheSwI'. */If one assumes the duties of chancellor, the duty-assumer rules the empire./ I see no reason how *gheSlu'wI'*/indefinite duty-assumer/ would improve this. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
But are we talking about an inconsequential subject?
The main reason I could see would be to subvert expectation or convention; you are taking something that is explicitly unmentioned, and mentioning it. This could be to make the point that something left unmentioned shouldn't be, or to express curiosity about something that is unknown, or to express an extreme lack of interest in the identity of the subject, or any number of other reasons.
Like Okrand, I can't think of any non-poetic reason why
the combination of -lu' and -wI' would be of any use.
Oh, I fully agree; all of these suggestions are meant to be regarded as possible poetic usages. ... and the key word there really is "possible". The fact that it goes against expectations suggests that it would probably be highly irregular in its usage. It's the sort of thing you'd submit to your editor with an annotation that it should be left as is.
Qang gheSlu'chugh, wo' che' gheSwI'. If one assumes the duties of chancellor, the duty-assumer
rules the empire. I see no reason how gheSlu'wI' indefinite
duty-assumer would improve this.
In this case, the reason could perhaps be to trivialize the person assuming office, or to highlight their indeterminate nature. Perhaps you consider the role of chancellor to be so set in routine that it doesn't matter who is next in line for the position. Alternatively, you might wish to highlight the generality of your statements by actively de-specifying the identity of the gheSlu'wI'. //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 21:51 To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] -lu'wI' On 5/26/2020 3:39 PM, Felix Malmenbeck wrote: I could perhaps imagine a case where you wish to imply that the subject is inconsequential, or perhaps perceived as inconsequential by themselves or others. But are we talking about an inconsequential subject? -lu' expresses an indefinite subject, not an inconsequential one. It might be that the subject isn't expressed definitely because it is inconsequential, but it might also be because the subject is just unknown or unclear, or that the expression of the subject is inconsequential, even if the subject itself isn't inconsequential. Qang gheSlu'chugh, wo' che'lu'. If one assumes the duties of chancellor, one rules the Empire. For example, you could start the poem off talking about why {Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam}, and then finish off by talking about the {Heghlu'wI'}. This could be done in support of the maxim (by highlighting the indeterminate identity of the {Heghlu'wI'}) or in order to satirize it (by implying that the {Heghlu'wI'} is commonly overlooked). Except for deliberately paralleling the syntax of the proverb (which once might try to do in poetry), I can't see any reason why you wouldn't just refer to the HeghwI' one who dies. Like Okrand, I can't think of any non-poetic reason why the combination of -lu' and -wI' would be of any use. Qang gheSlu'chugh, wo' che' gheSwI'. If one assumes the duties of chancellor, the duty-assumer rules the empire. I see no reason how gheSlu'wI' indefinite duty-assumer would improve this. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (4)
-
Felix Malmenbeck -
Jackson Bradley -
SuStel -
Will Martin