PS: here's the link to the video, including Klingon subtitles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9NSj6jXOwE Am 31.08.2018 um 16:19 schrieb Lieven L. Litaer:

This one word DI'raq has leaked throught the usage in my video for the book, where my daughter play the prince (and btw speak it quite well). I still get goosebumps when I see her speak that phrase. :-)

-- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/TheLittlePrince

Another question: upon watching the video again it seems the new word DerlIq may have been requested for this project, as the final DI'raq DIjlu'pu'bogh was inside a DerlIq. Is there any reason the existing word 'aplo' was unsuitable?

On Sep 1, 2018, at 01:02, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:

...

On Aug 31, 2018, at 09:29, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:

PS: here's the link to the video, including Klingon subtitles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9NSj6jXOwE

majQa'! pup puqlI' QIch!

I take it from the line “DI'raq motlh 'oHbe'. DI'raq loD 'oH.” that a DI'raq, like a Terran sheep, is typically expected to be a female? By analogy, would DI'raq be' be a ewe?

The video starts with “jav ben” but I don’t see this reflected in the English subtitles. Not being overly familiar with the source material, did perhaps the original French version specify that the plane crash occurred six years ago, where the standard English translation does not?

Any plans to release an edition with an English back-translation rather than a German one?

...

...

Am 31.08.2018 um 16:19 schrieb Lieven L. Litaer: This one word DI'raq has leaked throught the usage in my video for the book, where my daughter play the prince (and btw speak it quite well). I still get goosebumps when I see her speak that phrase. :-)

-- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/TheLittlePrince _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

Am 01.09.2018 um 08:02 schrieb Daniel Dadap:

majQa'! pup puqlI' QIch!

tlhIngan Hol ghojmoHwI' ghaH vavDaj'e'. :-)

I take it from the line “DI'raq motlh 'oHbe'. DI'raq loD 'oH.” that a DI'raq, like a Terran sheep, is typically expected to be a female?

In the original text, it says "That's not a sheep, that's a ram." Since there is no single word for "ram" in Klingon, the word DI'raq is repeated, so I cannot say {DI'raq 'oHbe'} because the next line says {DI'raq loD 'oH} - so I added the {motlh} in there to distinguish. Basically, it'S like in English (or French, German) that a {DI'raq} refers to the animal itself, no matter which gender, and you can add the gender to distinguish. I'm sure that applies to other animals as well.

By analogy, would DI'raq be' be a ewe?

No, the ewe is a {DI'raq be'}.

The video starts with “jav ben” but I don’t see this reflected in the English subtitles.

Oh, that my mistake then.

Not being overly familiar with the source material, did perhaps the original French version specify that the plane crash occurred six years ago, where the standard English translation does not?

The standard translation also does show that, I just missed in the subtitles (and I will fix that).

Any plans to release an edition with an English back-translation rather than a German one?

Yes, we are working on it, it will be published quite soon I hope. The problem is that ONLY in the USA, the text is not in public domain, so I am not allowed to publish it there. But I will publish it elsewhere and there will certainly be a way to get it to the US. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/TheLittlePrince

Am 01.09.2018 um 11:53 schrieb Daniel Dadap:

I think my question was whether “DI'raq motlh” implies that an ordinary sheep is a ewe. The original line “that’s not a sheep; that’s a ram” seems to make this sort of implication. Perhaps in a way an ordinary sheep is a ewe, since I imagine that most shepherds keep far more ewes than rams.

That is indeed an interesting question, but not about Klingon, it's more a general one that also applies to any language, being French, English or German. The prince was asking for a sheep. The used word "sheep" (french "mouton") does not imply any gender. When the pilot drew one with horns, the prince said "no, that's a ram" - this IS a specific gender, male. It's true that this seems to imply that he was expecting a female sheep when he asked for a sheep. I think that the ambiguity of sheep being used for a female sheep works pretty well in Klingon in the first place, as it's using a general term. --- Conveying this to a different idea, it's like he was asking for a "Human". When someone drew a male human, he replied that he was expecting a female. - Why he did that? I don't know.

...

...

By analogy, would DI'raq be' be a ewe?

No, the ewe is a {DI'raq be'}.

How is that different from what I asked?

I don't know. I think I over-read the word {be'} while answering. HIvqa' veqlargh! :-) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/ReplacementProverb

On Saturday, 1 September 2018 14:01:17 BST Lieven L. Litaer wrote:

The prince was asking for a sheep. The used word "sheep" (french "mouton") does not imply any gender. When the pilot drew one with horns, the prince said "no, that's a ram" - this IS a specific gender, male. It's true that this seems to imply that he was expecting a female sheep when he asked for a sheep.

I think that the ambiguity of sheep being used for a female sheep works pretty well in Klingon in the first place, as it's using a general term.

I think this is more to do with the structure of the typical herded flock, most will be ewes by design, with few or just one ram. Thus the ewe will be the typical/usual example of the sheep in the flock, and thus most likely expected.

Am 02.09.2018 um 00:13 schrieb De'vID:

Did Marc Okrand say anything about the (usual) object of {DIj}?

No, he did not.

I was a bit surprised to see {DIj} used with the object being a thing > whose representation was to be drawn on paper.[...]> {DI'raq DachenmoHmeH rItlh naQ yIDIj}?

I had always understood that {DIj} was used like {ghItlh} in the meaning of the action of painting. KGT first talks about the {rItlh naQ} and then says: The word {DIj} means "use a {rItlh naQ}, paint with a {rItlh naQ}." For me, it means that the {naQ} is part of the verb {DIj}, not its object: {nuq DIgh ghaH?} - "What does he do?" {DIj} - "he is painting with a rItlh naQ (applying paint to the nagh)" The answers to the question {nuq DIj?} are indeed not clear and leave room for interpretation. Mine is as follows: 1. {rItlh naQ DIj} - no, that's part of the definition 2. {nagh beQ DIj} - no, because what else would he paint on? Okay, paper, wood, wall, the ceiling - possibly. 3. {vay' DIj} - hm... this is not clear, but possible as well and seemed the most logical usage at the time I started my translation, if you regard DIj like ghItlh. (4. Skip the idea of DIj-ing a batleth) On an other topic, I first wonder if you can say {chenmoH} when you make a drawing. I think if we ask Maltz, we may get three new words referring drawing just as we have qon, gher, and ghItlh for the act of writing. In the case of my possibly incorrect usage of DIj, I can certainly argue like you did and say that this was a shortened form of something. :-) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/TheLittlePrince

ghItlhpu' De'vID, jatlh:

Actually, wouldn't the object of {DIj} be a pigment stick, i.e., the command

ought to have been something like {DI'raq DachenmoHmeH rItlh naQ yIDIj}?

Given that KGT's definition of {DIj} is "use a {rItlh naQ}, paint with a {rItlh naQ}" (in the text) and "use a pigment stick, paint with pigment stick", no parentheses in either case, I'd have thought {rItlh naQ} is the one thing that would never be used as its object. The {rItlh naQ} is expressly included in the definition of the verb. While we have no overt sign of how {DIj} might work with an object, absent other evidence I don't have any problem at all with the use of {DIj} with the depiction as the object. In the past I've also used it in contexts where the object is the pigment itself, rather than the depiction: DopvamDaq DIng, DopvetlhDaq DIng 'ej mI' ram Hegh Sech mIS. rItlh DIjbogh veqlargh rur bIQ'a', wov 'oH, 'ej SuD, 'ej chIS. "About, about, in reel and rout The death-fires danced at night; The water, like a witch's oils, Burnt green, and blue, and white." (The Rime of the Ancient Mariner II.11) QeS 'utlh

Am 02.09.2018 um 17:00 schrieb De'vID:

The painting-{DIj} is clearly the same verb as the bat'leth-{DIj}. What would you {DIj} with a bat'leth? Presumably the opponent's sword.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It's certainly an interesting discussion. KGT only says that "To slide the blade of one’s <bat’leth> along the blade of the opponent’s weapon is {DIj}." So -- just like with all the other sword words -- it's not clear what the object is. Do I say {betleH vIDIj} or {jIDIjmeH betleH vIlo'}? When you rotate the beleH, then it's {jIrmoH}, so here it's clear that the bat'leth is the object of the verb, but this does not say anything about the other verbs. [note to Voragh: do we have any examples for hte sword action verbs?]

that case, I'd think the object of painting-{DIj} is the surface you're scraping your pigment stick on

I liked the comparison to the word ghItlh that does not write the paper, it writes the words. It's still possble there's a specific word for "make a drawing." -- We'll see. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/TheLittlePrince

On Sun, Sep 2, 2018, 17:00 De'vID, <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

Okay, but what if I draw a picture of a pigment stick with a pigment stick, then underneath it write {rItlh naQ 'oHbe' Dochvam'e'}.

Does no one know the pun behind {maghwI'}? Has it been there all these decades, and nobody noticed? -- De'vID

On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 at 15:43, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:

I think I’m missing a few messages from this thread, so forgive the following…

I know the pun behind the slang noun {bolwI’}, but AFAIK {maghwI’} is a normal derivation of {magh} “betray, act against”.

René Magritte painted "La Trahison des images". -- De'vID

On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 at 17:34, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 10/1/2018 10:59 AM, De'vID wrote:

n Mon, 1 Oct 2018 at 15:43, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:

...

I think I’m missing a few messages from this thread, so forgive the following…

I know the pun behind the slang noun {bolwI’}, but AFAIK {maghwI’} is a normal derivation of {magh} “betray, act against”.

René Magritte painted "La Trahison des images".

That seems like a coincidence to me, not a pun. The puns in TKD aren't so sophisticated. Nowadays he knows we look for them right away; back then he didn't know he had any particular audience.

If it's a coincidence, Do'Ha'. It's such a beautiful Okrandian pun that it deserves to be intentional. -- De'vID