Klingon Word of the Day for Thursday, November 30, 2017 Klingon word: tIw Part of speech: verb Definition: react emotionally, behave emotionally Source: qepHom 2017 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh@kli.org).
Klingon word: tIw Part of speech: verb Definition: react emotionally, behave emotionally Source: qepHom 2017 _______________________________________________ So far only used in ST Discovery: jItIwmo' jIvangbe' [translation not available] (DSC "The Vulcan Hello") matIwtaHvIS pa'logh nIyma' wIleghchugh When emotions brings us ghosts from the past (DSC "The Vulcan Hello" subtitles) SEE ALSO: DuQ touch (emotionally) (v) (KGT 71): Another common way to say that a specific piece or performance of music has a particularly strong effect on a listener is to employ the verb {DuQ} (literally, "stab"): {muDuQ bom} ("The song stabs me", or, in a more colloquial Federation Standard form, "The song moves me"). nong be passionate (v) (KGT 132): One simile of this type associates a people with a quality opposite from one they actually typify: {nong; vulqangan rur} ("passionate as a Vulcan"). This would be used to describe somebody who was not passionate. As far as can be determined, this is the only use of irony in expressions of this type, and what led to this unique occurrence is not known." TREK TRIVIA: "I must confess that I too am moved emotionally. I know it is illogical." (Spock to Romulan Commander, TOS "The Enterprise Incident") According to Ambassador Soval, Vulcans consider the Klingons to be wildly emotional. (ENT "The Forge") -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
Am 30.11.2017 um 16:47 schrieb Steven Boozer:
jItIwmo' jIvangbe' [translation not available] (DSC "The Vulcan Hello")
The english was: "My commitment to this course of action is not emotional." BTW, this is also only in the subtitles. More details from qepHom 2017, page 13: ---- MO: For "logic," use the verb {meq}. It's a verb that means, among other things, "think logically." I think Klingons would use a verb when talking about types of thinking rather than a noun. For "emotions," you can use the verb {tIw}. This means "react emotionally, behave emotionally." LLL: Can {tIw} take an object? As with meaning of "feeling emotions", being one's own, or someone else emotions? MO: No. I don't think it can take an object. You'd probably say something like: {cheghDI' bangwI' jItIw.} -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.net http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Maltz
On 30 November 2017 at 17:06, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 30.11.2017 um 16:47 schrieb Steven Boozer:
jItIwmo' jIvangbe'
[translation not available] (DSC "The Vulcan Hello")
The english was: "My commitment to this course of action is not emotional."
Isn't the negation on the wrong thing? {jItIwmo' jIvangbe'} reads like "my commitment to non-action is emotional". I'd expect something like {jIvangtaHvIS jItIwbe'} or {jItIwbe'mo' jIvangtaH net SIghbe'}, where the {-be'} is attached to {tIw}. -- De'vID
On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 10:22 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
Isn't the negation on the wrong thing? {jItIwmo' jIvangbe'} reads like "my commitment to non-action is emotional".
I'd expect something like {jIvangtaHvIS jItIwbe'} or {jItIwbe'mo' jIvangtaH net SIghbe'}, where the {-be'} is attached to {tIw}.
It seems neither {tIw} nor {vang} should be negated in this case. What needs negating is the causation expressed by {-mo'}, but known grammar rules preclude a rover after a VS9 so it can't be negated that way, nor is there any known adverbial that can do it. The same could happen with {-meH} when purpose is what needs to be negated. Maybe something like: {muvangmoHbe' tIwmeH laHwIj} "My capacity for reacting emotionally does not me to act." ~mIp'av
On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
It seems neither {tIw} nor {vang} should be negated in this case. What needs negating is the causation expressed by {-mo'}, but known grammar rules preclude a rover after a VS9 so it can't be negated that way, nor is there any known adverbial that can do it. The same could happen with {-meH} when purpose is what needs to be negated. Maybe something like: {muvangmoHbe' tIwmeH laHwIj} "My capacity for reacting emotionally does not me to act."
My solution: introduce a higher-level clause and negate that. {jItIwmo' jIvang net tu'be'.} "One does not observe that I acted because I was emotional." (Or perhaps less literally "It is not the case that I acted because I was emotional", which sounds a little like a formal logic textbook.)
Ed Bailey:
known grammar rules preclude a rover after a VS9
Is there really such a rule ? I admit that meaning-wise it wouldn't make sense using a rover after a type-9 verb suffix. But is there really a specific rule which prohibits that ? ~ nI'ghma On Dec 3, 2017 06:13, "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
It seems neither {tIw} nor {vang} should be negated in this case. What needs negating is the causation expressed by {-mo'}, but known grammar rules preclude a rover after a VS9 so it can't be negated that way, nor is there any known adverbial that can do it. The same could happen with {-meH} when purpose is what needs to be negated. Maybe something like: {muvangmoHbe' tIwmeH laHwIj} "My capacity for reacting emotionally does not me to act."
My solution: introduce a higher-level clause and negate that. {jItIwmo' jIvang net tu'be'.} "One does not observe that I acted because I was emotional." (Or perhaps less literally "It is not the case that I acted because I was emotional", which sounds a little like a formal logic textbook.)
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Am 03.12.2017 um 09:01 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
Is there really such a rule ? I admit that meaning-wise it wouldn't make sense using a rover after a type-9 verb suffix. But is there really a specific rule which prohibits that ?
TKD, chapter 4.3, first paragraph: "Rovers [...] can come just about anywhere except following a Type 9 suffix." -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.net http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Rover
Am 03.12.2017 um 04:22 schrieb De'vID:
Isn't the negation on the wrong thing? {jItIwmo' jIvangbe'} reads like "my commitment to non-action is emotional".
You're right, it sounds strange. But with such a construction, the same ambinguity can also happen in English: "I did not kill him because I was hungry" a) being hungry was the reason for not killing him. b) I killed him, not because I was hungry, but because I was thirsty. In English, intonation would mark the difference.
I'd expect something like {jIvangtaHvIS jItIwbe'} or {jItIwbe'mo' jIvangtaH net SIghbe'}, where the {-be'} is attached to {tIw}.
When thinking more about it, I would have said something like {ta'meywIj SIghbe' tIwtaHghachwIj} or {jIvangmeH jItIwbe'}. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.net http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Subtitles
participants (7)
-
De'vID -
Ed Bailey -
Klingon Word of the Day -
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
nIqolay Q -
Steven Boozer