Is DIn the opposite of qa'rI' ?
DIn (n) "open entryway (to corridor, tunnel, conduit, jeffries tube, branch of sewer)" qa'rI' (n) "end (of corridor, tunnel, conduit, jeffries tube, sewer, road, bridge, long field, etc)" Would you (yes *you*, you who are reading this), consider that DIn (n) is the opposite of qa'rI' (n) ? Because, seemingly/apparently, DIn (n) has to do *only* with enclosed spaces, whereas qa'rI' (n) refers to open spaces as well. ~ m. qunen'oS I find transliteration disturbing
To get the discussion started... (HQ 12.2:7-8): For the end of a longish enclosed space that one is typically inside of or experiences from the inside, such as a corridor, tunnel, or conduit (say, a Jeffries tube or a branch of the sewers of Paris), a different word is used: {qa'rI'}. This is the only word; it's used for both (or all) ends. The open entryway leading into such a space is called a {Din}. If there's a door there, it's referred to by the usual word for door, {lojmIt}. {qa'rI'} is also used for the end of bounded space which is seen as having length even if it is not enclosed space. Thus, it is used for the end of a road, the end of a bridge, the end of a long field. (Maltz didn't think it would mean much of anything to refer to the {qa'rI'} of a square field.) On the other hand, if a bridge is under construction and lies halfway across a river or gorge or freeway, it may be said to have a {megh'an} (or {'er'In}). One could, in theory, hang a sign or flag from the {megh'an} (or {'er'In}), but one could walk on this incomplete bridge only as far as the {qa'rI'}. ghe'tor DInDaq ghaHtaH qeylIS'e' Kahless is at the entrance of Gre'thor (PB) bIQtIq qa'rI'Daq pawDI' qeylIS qojDaq Qam bIngDaq Qo'noS botlh legh It ends at a cliff, Leading straight into the core Of Kronos (PB) ["It" being the river of flame in the Kri'stak volcano.] --Voragh -----Original Message----- From: mayqel qunen'oS DIn (n) "open entryway (to corridor, tunnel, conduit, jeffries tube, branch of sewer)" qa'rI' (n) "end (of corridor, tunnel, conduit, jeffries tube, sewer, road, bridge, long field, etc)" Would you (yes *you*, you who are reading this), consider that DIn (n) is the opposite of qa'rI' (n) ? Because, seemingly/apparently, DIn (n) has to do *only* with enclosed spaces, whereas qa'rI' (n) refers to open spaces as well.
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 20:50, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
To get the discussion started...
(HQ 12.2:7-8): For the end of a longish enclosed space that one is typically inside of or experiences from the inside, such as a corridor, tunnel, or conduit (say, a Jeffries tube or a branch of the sewers of Paris), a different word is used: {qa'rI'}. This is the only word; it's used for both (or all) ends. The open entryway leading into such a space is called a {Din}. If there's a door there, it's referred to by the usual word for door, {lojmIt}.
The KLI New Klingon Words list says this: {DIn} n. Open entryway (to corridor, tunnel, conduit, Jeffries tube, branch of sewer) [This is the open entryway of any enclosed space longer than wide in which people might find themselves. If there is a door that closes, this is not a {DIn}. It is merely a {lojmIt}.] This seems to be an interpretation which has added something to the original. In the original, it just says "a door", not "a door that closes". What if the door is stuck open? Has the entryway effectively become a {DIn} in that case, or is it still a {lojmIt} (albeit a {lojmIt DIy}). (Also, if it's stuck closed, it is a {qa'rI'}? If only we had a {lojmIt tI'wI' nuv} around here...) -- De'vID
On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 09:30, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 20:50, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
To get the discussion started...
(HQ 12.2:7-8): For the end of a longish enclosed space that one is typically inside of or experiences from the inside, such as a corridor, tunnel, or conduit (say, a Jeffries tube or a branch of the sewers of Paris), a different word is used: {qa'rI'}. This is the only word; it's used for both (or all) ends. The open entryway leading into such a space is called a {Din}. If there's a door there, it's referred to by the usual word for door, {lojmIt}.
How do people understand the antecedents of "there" and "it" in the last sentence? "If there's a door [[there]], [[it]]'s referred to by the usual word for door, {lojmIt}." The KLI New Klingon Words list says this:
{DIn} n. Open entryway (to corridor, tunnel, conduit, Jeffries tube, branch of sewer) [This is the open entryway of any enclosed space longer than wide in which people might find themselves. If there is a door that closes, this is not a {DIn}. It is merely a {lojmIt}.]
This seems to be an interpretation which has added something to the original. In the original, it just says "a door", not "a door that closes".
Having re-read the original definition of {DIn} given in HolQeD 12.2, I'm not convinced that the description given in the KLI New Words List is correct. Here is how I read the sentence: "If there's a door there [at the open entryway, i.e., the {DIn}], it [the door]'s referred to by the usual word for door, {lojmIt}." That is, the open entryway leading into a corridor or tunnel is called a {DIn} (regardless of whether there's a door or not), and if there's a door, the door is called by the usual word {lojmIt} (unlike in English, where there are special words like "hatch" or "gate"). That is, the fact of a door being at the entryway does not make it a "closed" entryway. It still counts as "open" because it's how you access the corridor or tunnel. If there's a tunnel which leads to a dead end, you still refer to the end which isn't a dead end as the "open" entryway, even if there's a door there. The person who wrote up the description in the KLI New Words List apparently read it differently in this way: "If there's a door there [at the end of the longish enclosed space, i.e., the {qa'rI'}], it [the entryway]'s referred to by the usual word for door, {lojmIt}." The antecedent for "it" has to be taken to be "the entryway" (rather than "the door") to arrive at the interpretation that the entryway is *not* a {DIn}, but "merely a {lojmIt}". But the previous sentence says "the open entryway", so if "it" refers to that, it still doesn't fit the interpretation. Also, taking "there" to refer to the {qa'rI'}, rather than the {DIn} in the immediately previously sentence, seems like reaching back too far. What do other people think? Or is there additional evidence that supports the interpretation given in the New Words List? -- De'vID
Am 03.04.2019 um 07:36 schrieb De'vID:
How do people understand the antecedents of "there" and "it" in the last sentence? "If there's a door [[there]], [[it]]'s referred to by the usual word for door, {lojmIt}."
I understand it as: "If there's a door [[there at the open entryway called DIn]], [[that door]] is referred to by the usual word for door, {lojmIt}."
The KLI New Klingon Words list says this: {DIn} n. Open entryway (to corridor, tunnel, conduit, Jeffries tube, branch of sewer) [This is the open entryway of any enclosed space longer than wide in which people might find themselves. If there is a door that closes, this is not a {DIn}. It is merely a {lojmIt}.]
This seems to be an interpretation which has added something to the original. In the original, it just says "a door", not "a door that closes".
Yes, I see it the same way. The original text does not say anything about closing, but also does not say anything that it is called {lojmIt} INSTEAD OF {DIn}. It says that if there is a door at the DIn, that is called lojmIt.
What do other people think? Or is there additional evidence that supports the interpretation given in the New Words List?
What I think can be made clear with an image: I see a tunnel going into a mountain. The {qa'rI'} of that tunnel ends in the middle of the rock. It's definitely a closed end with no way out. (And I think it cannot have a door, otherwise Okrand would have said so) The other side, the entrance of the tunnel, is open, of course. The connection between the open space and the mountain. It's called {DIn}. This {DIn} can of course have a door, and that's called lojmIt. Used in a phrase, you would say {DInDaq lojmIt tu'lu'.} "There's a door at the entryway (of the tunnel)." By the way, I can add something from the point of view of an architect: When you construct a building, you first build the walls. There's a big hole in the wall where you can walk into the room. You would not call that a door, it's just a big gap in the wall; parallel to the tunnel, you may call it {DIn}. When you add the movable thing that closes the hole, that's the {lojmIt}. Talking about images - I've made aquick drawing showing what I think the words mean. See it at http://www.klingonisch.de/mIllogh/tunnelwords.png -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery
HolQeD says: "The open entryway leading into such a space is called a {DIn}. If there's a door there, it's referred to by the usual word for door, {lojmIt}." Am 03.04.2019 um 07:36 schrieb De'vID:
How do people understand the antecedents of "there" and "it" in the last sentence? "If there's a door [[there]], [[it]]'s referred to by the usual word for door, {lojmIt}."
I have received a clarification on this from Marc Okrand, and his answer even brought a new word: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- What I was driving at is that a {qa'rI'} at or from which one can enter or exit is a {DIn}. There may or may not be a (closed or open) door or gate there, but if there is, that door or gate is a {lojmIt}. That is, there's no special word just because it's a {qa'rI'} door. (By the way, a doorframe or something similar — something constructed to hold a door or gate, whether the door/gate is there or not — is a {lIvqa'nan}.) I hope this helps rather than cause more confusion. - Marc ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This confirms what I had in this drawing: http://www.klingonisch.de/mIllogh/tunnelwords.png -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/MarcOkrand
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 22:42:38 +0200 "Lieven L. Litaer" <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
HolQeD says:
"The open entryway leading into such a space is called a {DIn}. If there's a door there, it's referred to by the usual word for door, {lojmIt}."
Am 03.04.2019 um 07:36 schrieb De'vID:
How do people understand the antecedents of "there" and "it" in the last sentence? "If there's a door [[there]], [[it]]'s referred to by the usual word for door, {lojmIt}."
I have received a clarification on this from Marc Okrand, and his answer even brought a new word:
----------------------------------------------------------------------- What I was driving at is that a {qa'rI'} at or from which one can enter or exit is a {DIn}. There may or may not be a (closed or open) door or gate there, but if there is, that door or gate is a {lojmIt}. That is, there's no special word just because it's a {qa'rI'} door.
(By the way, a doorframe or something similar — something constructed to hold a door or gate, whether the door/gate is there or not — is a {lIvqa'nan}.)
I hope this helps rather than cause more confusion.
- Marc
So, when we [vegh], we go through the [lIvqa'nan], instead of the [lojmIt], yes? - DloraH
Am 11.04.2019 um 23:46 schrieb DloraH:
So, when we [vegh], we go through the [lIvqa'nan], instead of the [lojmIt], yes?
That question seems logic, but I think it's not the case in daily speech. a) Technically spoken, the frame is only /part/ of the door, so you still go through the "door". b) That's how it works in all languages I know (but that's no rule for Klingon of course) c) The definition of {vegh} is "go through door". d) going even further, it is (probably) possible that this construction is not even a closed thing; it could be half left, half right. So you don't really {vegh} it, you just walk between those two halfs (but still a door). Your question is certainly appropiate and the idea is even correct when taken literally, but I would say that insisting on this idea would be too much nitpicking (no offense please). A door is a door. Taken literally, you are even traversing a wall, if the door is in the wall. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Maltz
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 23:46 DloraH, <seruq@bellsouth.net> wrote:
So, when we [vegh], we go through the [lIvqa'nan], instead of the [lojmIt], yes?
I think only pedants go through doorframes. ;-) Maybe Klingons would say {lIvqa'nan vegh} in some technical context, but I imagine in everyday speech one says {lojmIt poS vegh}. lIvqa'nanDaq Daq pagh. -- De'vID
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 22:43, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
I have received a clarification on this from Marc Okrand, and his answer even brought a new word:
----------------------------------------------------------------------- What I was driving at is that a {qa'rI'} at or from which one can enter or exit is a {DIn}. There may or may not be a (closed or open) door or gate there, but if there is, that door or gate is a {lojmIt}. That is, there's no special word just because it's a {qa'rI'} door.
(By the way, a doorframe or something similar — something constructed to hold a door or gate, whether the door/gate is there or not — is a {lIvqa'nan}.)
The definition in the KLI New Words list is incorrect and needs to be fixed: https://www.kli.org/about-klingon/new-klingon-words/D/ "Open entryway (to corridor, tunnel, conduit, Jeffries tube, branch of sewer) [This is the open entryway of any enclosed space longer than wide in which people might find themselves. If there is a door that closes, this is not a {DIn}. It is merely a {lojmIt}.]" -- De'vID
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 22:43, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
(By the way, a doorframe or something similar — something constructed to hold a door or gate, whether the door/gate is there or not — is a {lIvqa'nan}.)
This really looks like it wants to be a pun. Also, I wonder if Klingons call out {lIvqa'nan!} to leave their holodecks. (In Federation Standard, you call out "arch!", which is basically techspeak for "doorframe".) https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Arch -- De'vID
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 20:50, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
To get the discussion started...
(HQ 12.2:7-8): For the end of a longish enclosed space that one is typically inside of or experiences from the inside, such as a corridor, tunnel, or conduit (say, a Jeffries tube or a branch of the sewers of Paris), a different word is used: {qa'rI'}. This is the only word; it's used for both (or all) ends. The open entryway leading into such a space is called a {Din}. If there's a door there, it's referred to by the usual word for door, {lojmIt}. {qa'rI'} is also used for the end of bounded space which is seen as having length even if it is not enclosed space. Thus, it is used for the end of a road, the end of a bridge, the end of a long field. (Maltz didn't think it would mean much of anything to refer to the {qa'rI'} of a square field.) On the other hand, if a bridge is under construction and lies halfway across a river or gorge or freeway, it may be said to have a {megh'an} (or {'er'In}). One could, in theory, hang a sign or flag from the {megh'an} (or {'er'In}), but one could walk on this incomplete bridge only as far as the {qa'rI'}.
btw if anyone is wondering why {DIn}, {qa'rI'}, {megh'an}, and {'er'In} sound like people names, it's because they are. (Dean, Kari, Megan, and Erin are members of Marc Okrand's family.) -- De'vID
I wouldn't consider them opposites. They talk about two different things with some conceptual overlap. A tunnel could have a *DIn* at each *qa'rI'*, for instance. And that tunnel could have a *DIn* in the middle (like a T-intersection) and not at a *qa'rI'*. On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 12:36 PM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
DIn (n) "open entryway (to corridor, tunnel, conduit, jeffries tube, branch of sewer)"
qa'rI' (n) "end (of corridor, tunnel, conduit, jeffries tube, sewer, road, bridge, long field, etc)"
Would you (yes *you*, you who are reading this), consider that DIn (n) is the opposite of qa'rI' (n) ?
Because, seemingly/apparently, DIn (n) has to do *only* with enclosed spaces, whereas qa'rI' (n) refers to open spaces as well.
~ m. qunen'oS I find transliteration disturbing _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Consider that in English a doorway could be called an “entrance” or an “exit” depending upon whether you are outside of the space you might enter or inside the space that you might exit. I think this is the difference between {DIn} and {qa’rI’}. If you are in a corridor, tunnel, conduit, jeffries tube, sewer, road, bridge, long field, etc. and you point to that transitional location that would take you outside the bounds of that named place you are in, you are pointing to the {qa’rI’}. If you are outside of the corridor, tunnel, jeffries tube, or sewer, pointing to the transitional location that would take you into that named space, you’d be pointing to a {DIn}. Does {DIn} work for the transitional area to a road, bridge, or long field? Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn’t think so. Basically, I think you’d {vegh} a {DIn}. You wouldn’t {vegh} a {qa’rI’}. {vegh} implies going from an open space into an enclosed space, even if the enclosed space is a hole in a wall between two open spaces. It does not imply going from an enclosed space to an open space. In any case, I think the difference between the two words has less to do with whether the space is open or enclosed and more to do with whether you are identifying the space from within it or from the outside. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Mar 27, 2019, at 4:17 PM, nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
I wouldn't consider them opposites. They talk about two different things with some conceptual overlap. A tunnel could have a DIn at each qa'rI', for instance. And that tunnel could have a DIn in the middle (like a T-intersection) and not at a qa'rI'.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 12:36 PM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote: DIn (n) "open entryway (to corridor, tunnel, conduit, jeffries tube, branch of sewer)"
qa'rI' (n) "end (of corridor, tunnel, conduit, jeffries tube, sewer, road, bridge, long field, etc)"
Would you (yes *you*, you who are reading this), consider that DIn (n) is the opposite of qa'rI' (n) ?
Because, seemingly/apparently, DIn (n) has to do *only* with enclosed spaces, whereas qa'rI' (n) refers to open spaces as well.
~ m. qunen'oS I find transliteration disturbing _______________________________________________ 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 <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
I’d like to modify what I said about {vegh}. I think it means to pass from an open space to an enclosed space, AND THEN TO AN OPEN SPACE. You don’t {vegh} into a space. You {vegh} THROUGH a space. You can {vegh} through a doorway or through a tunnel. If you go into a tunnel and you stay there, then you didn’t finish {vegh}ing. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Mar 28, 2019, at 9:52 AM, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
Consider that in English a doorway could be called an “entrance” or an “exit” depending upon whether you are outside of the space you might enter or inside the space that you might exit. I think this is the difference between {DIn} and {qa’rI’}.
If you are in a corridor, tunnel, conduit, jeffries tube, sewer, road, bridge, long field, etc. and you point to that transitional location that would take you outside the bounds of that named place you are in, you are pointing to the {qa’rI’}. If you are outside of the corridor, tunnel, jeffries tube, or sewer, pointing to the transitional location that would take you into that named space, you’d be pointing to a {DIn}. Does {DIn} work for the transitional area to a road, bridge, or long field? Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn’t think so.
Basically, I think you’d {vegh} a {DIn}. You wouldn’t {vegh} a {qa’rI’}. {vegh} implies going from an open space into an enclosed space, even if the enclosed space is a hole in a wall between two open spaces. It does not imply going from an enclosed space to an open space.
In any case, I think the difference between the two words has less to do with whether the space is open or enclosed and more to do with whether you are identifying the space from within it or from the outside.
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Mar 27, 2019, at 4:17 PM, nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com <mailto:niqolay0@gmail.com>> wrote:
I wouldn't consider them opposites. They talk about two different things with some conceptual overlap. A tunnel could have a DIn at each qa'rI', for instance. And that tunnel could have a DIn in the middle (like a T-intersection) and not at a qa'rI'.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 12:36 PM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote: DIn (n) "open entryway (to corridor, tunnel, conduit, jeffries tube, branch of sewer)"
qa'rI' (n) "end (of corridor, tunnel, conduit, jeffries tube, sewer, road, bridge, long field, etc)"
Would you (yes *you*, you who are reading this), consider that DIn (n) is the opposite of qa'rI' (n) ?
Because, seemingly/apparently, DIn (n) has to do *only* with enclosed spaces, whereas qa'rI' (n) refers to open spaces as well.
~ m. qunen'oS I find transliteration disturbing _______________________________________________ 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 <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org> _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 14:52, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
If you are in a corridor, tunnel, conduit, jeffries tube, sewer, road, bridge, long field, etc. and you point to that transitional location that would take you outside the bounds of that named place you are in, you are pointing to the {qa’rI’}.
Technically, this is true only for the narrow end of long fields. The longs sides are also transitional locations, but {qa'rI'} only ever refers to the narrow sides.
If you are outside of the corridor, tunnel, jeffries tube, or sewer, pointing to the transitional location that would take you into that named space, you’d be pointing to a {DIn}. Does {DIn} work for the transitional area to a road, bridge, or long field? Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn’t think so.
Why not? Is there any reason to believe one way or another? -- De'vID
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 17:36, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
DIn (n) "open entryway (to corridor, tunnel, conduit, jeffries tube, branch of sewer)"
qa'rI' (n) "end (of corridor, tunnel, conduit, jeffries tube, sewer, road, bridge, long field, etc)"
Would you (yes *you*, you who are reading this), consider that DIn (n) is the opposite of qa'rI' (n) ?
Because, seemingly/apparently, DIn (n) has to do *only* with enclosed spaces, whereas qa'rI' (n) refers to open spaces as well.
The discussion split off into another thread, but to bring it back: the latest info answers your question. On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 22:43, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
I have received a clarification on this from Marc Okrand, and his answer even brought a new word:
----------------------------------------------------------------------- What I was driving at is that a {qa'rI'} at or from which one can enter or exit is a {DIn}. There may or may not be a (closed or open) door or gate there, but if there is, that door or gate is a {lojmIt}. That is, there's no special word just because it's a {qa'rI'} door.
(By the way, a doorframe or something similar — something constructed to hold a door or gate, whether the door/gate is there or not — is a {lIvqa'nan}.)
I hope this helps rather than cause more confusion.
- Marc
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they're not opposites. A {DIn} is a type of {qa'rI'}, namely, one at or from which one can enter or exit. -- De'vID
participants (8)
-
Daniel Dadap -
De'vID -
DloraH -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
Steven Boozer -
Will Martin