just as I was about to "hit the sack" (as americans say), or "fall for sleep" (as greeks say) I made a disturbing realization.. if I wanted to write: "for YOU I die", I cannot write {SoH'e'vaD jIHegh} because then I would have two type 5 suffixes which is illegal. So, the only way would be to write something more "descriptive" such as {SoH'e' qaQanmeH jIHeghqang} or {SoH'e' qatoDmeH jIHeghqang}. The fact that I can't use simultaneously {'e'} with another type 5 suffix disturbs me, and this will trouble me until I visit the land of morpheus tonight.. and now I will fall for sleep (as greeks say), or {DaH jIQong} as klingons say. maj ram. qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 11/9/2016 3:09 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
if I wanted to write: "for YOU I die", I cannot write {SoH'e'vaD jIHegh} because then I would have two type 5 suffixes which is illegal.
Do you see how you did it in English? You didn't use a grammatical construct; you just stressed the word. Do that in Klingon, too. **SoHvaD* jIHegh* When speaking, you would stress the *SoHvaD.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
When speaking, you would stress the SoHvaD.
thank you for reminding this to me ! As silly as this obviously will sound, I have the impression that klingon is only a written language and not a spoken one.. qunnoH jan puqloD On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 10:25 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/9/2016 3:09 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
if I wanted to write: "for YOU I die", I cannot write {SoH'e'vaD jIHegh} because then I would have two type 5 suffixes which is illegal.
Do you see how you did it in English? You didn't use a grammatical construct; you just stressed the word. Do that in Klingon, too.
*SoHvaD* jIHegh
When speaking, you would stress the SoHvaD.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
lieven:
This is obvious in the strange kind of writing
letters tIn DaDeltaHchugh vaj jIjatlhnIS, lettersvam vImuSHa' ! chaq, lettersvammo' neH tlhIngan Hol vIghojtaH. jIHvaD peQ'a' lurur lettersvam.. qunnoH jan puqloD On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:56 PM, <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Indeed it is true that more people can "write" Klingon than speak it (which I noticed again at the qepHom).
But actually, in the first place, Klingon was never intended as a written language, but really only to be spoken - that is: on screen. This is obvious in the strange kind of writing, and also sometimes visible in situations where people ask whether a noun-noun word is written with or without space. When speaking the language there is no difference anyway, so Okrand never focused on that. At least not in earlier years, see the recent note on "wab(_)Do".
Lieven.
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. November 2016 um 08:24 Uhr Von: "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> An: "tlhIngan Hol mailing list" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org> Betreff: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] A disturbing realization thank you for reminding this to me ! As silly as this obviously will sound, I have the impression that klingon is only a written language and not a spoken one..
qunnoH jan puqloD
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 11/10/2016 11:22 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
lieven:
This is obvious in the strange kind of writing letters tIn DaDeltaHchugh vaj jIjatlhnIS, lettersvam vImuSHa' ! chaq, lettersvammo' neH tlhIngan Hol vIghojtaH. jIHvaD peQ'a' lurur lettersvam..
/letter/ mughlu'meH mu' chu' wIHevpu': *ngutlh.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
In this thread discussing {pIqaD} and fonts, it's a good time to start using one of the brand-new nouns revealed at qepHom 2016: {ngutlh} "letter, written character". __ Voragh Lieven:
This is obvious in the strange kind of writing
qunnoH jan puqloD:
letters tIn DaDeltaHchugh vaj jIjatlhnIS, lettersvam vImuSHa' ! chaq, lettersvammo' neH tlhIngan Hol vIghojtaH. jIHvaD peQ'a' lurur lettersvam.
SuStel:
letter mughlu'meH mu' chu' wIHevpu': ngutlh. voragh: it's a good time to start using one of the brand-new nouns revealed at qepHom 2016
maj. wej {ngutlh} vIghoj 'ach DaH tuSovmoHta'mo' vIlo' ! qunnoH jan puqloD On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:31 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
In this thread discussing {pIqaD} and fonts, it's a good time to start using one of the brand-new nouns revealed at qepHom 2016: {ngutlh} "letter, written character". __ Voragh
Lieven:
This is obvious in the strange kind of writing
qunnoH jan puqloD:
letters tIn DaDeltaHchugh vaj jIjatlhnIS, lettersvam vImuSHa' ! chaq, lettersvammo' neH tlhIngan Hol vIghojtaH. jIHvaD peQ'a' lurur lettersvam.
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
qunnoH jan puqloD:
letters tIn DaDeltaHchugh vaj jIjatlhnIS, lettersvam vImuSHa'! chaq, lettersvammo' neH tlhIngan Hol vIghojtaH. jIHvaD peQ'a' lurur lettersvam.
Voragh:
In this thread discussing {pIqaD} and fonts, it's a good time to start using one of the brand-new nouns revealed at qepHom 2016: {ngutlh} "letter, written character".
Thoughts while (slowly) updating my notes with all the new vocabulary from the qepHom... {ngutlh} replaces the work-around *{DeghHom}, sometimes used on this List. And, since it's what I do <g>... TKD 77: Note that ch, gh, ng, and tlh are considered separate letters. (MO via ghunchu'wI', 7/27/2009): There are names for the individual sounds of spoken Klingon. These are not really the letters of an alphabet (though with the phonetic transcription we use, the distinction is very fine). They follow a very simple pattern: consonants' names consist of the sound followed by {-ay}, and vowels' names consist of the sound preceded by /'/ and followed by /t/. The glottal stop sound is an exception, being called {qaghwI'}, though this longish name is often eschewed in favor of a simple grunt of the sound itself. E.g. 'at, bay, chay, Day, 'et, ghay ... 'ut, way, yay, qaghwI'. To refer to an alphabet, syllabary, etc., we might say *{ngutlhghom} on the model of {mangghom} {army}, {mu'ghom} "dictionary" and {tIjwI'ghom} "boarding party. *{ngutlhtlhegh} is another option - see {mu'tlhegh} "sentence" and {yutlhegh} "spectrum, (musical) scale". SEE ALSO: pIqaD the native Klingon writing system (n) Degh symbol (n) mIllogh picture, image, (visual) depiction, drawing (n) -- Voragh tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a' Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
'at, bay, chay, Day, 'et, ghay ... 'ut, way, yay, qaghwI'. To refer to an alphabet, syllabary, etc., we might say *{ngutlhghom} on the model of {mangghom} {army}, {mu'ghom} "dictionary" and {tIjwI'ghom} "boarding party. {ngutlhtlhegh} is another option - see {mu'tlhegh} "sentence" and {yutlhegh} "spectrum, (musical) scale".
Are the above a direct quote from 'oqranD ? qunnoH jan puqloD On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
qunnoH jan puqloD:
letters tIn DaDeltaHchugh vaj jIjatlhnIS, lettersvam vImuSHa'! chaq, lettersvammo' neH tlhIngan Hol vIghojtaH. jIHvaD peQ'a' lurur lettersvam.
Voragh:
In this thread discussing {pIqaD} and fonts, it's a good time to start using one of the brand-new nouns revealed at qepHom 2016: {ngutlh} "letter, written character".
Thoughts while (slowly) updating my notes with all the new vocabulary from the qepHom...
{ngutlh} replaces the work-around *{DeghHom}, sometimes used on this List.
And, since it's what I do <g>...
TKD 77: Note that ch, gh, ng, and tlh are considered separate letters.
(MO via ghunchu'wI', 7/27/2009): There are names for the individual sounds of spoken Klingon. These are not really the letters of an alphabet (though with the phonetic transcription we use, the distinction is very fine). They follow a very simple pattern: consonants' names consist of the sound followed by {-ay}, and vowels' names consist of the sound preceded by /'/ and followed by /t/. The glottal stop sound is an exception, being called {qaghwI'}, though this longish name is often eschewed in favor of a simple grunt of the sound itself.
E.g. 'at, bay, chay, Day, 'et, ghay ... 'ut, way, yay, qaghwI'.
To refer to an alphabet, syllabary, etc., we might say *{ngutlhghom} on the model of {mangghom} {army}, {mu'ghom} "dictionary" and {tIjwI'ghom} "boarding party. *{ngutlhtlhegh} is another option - see {mu'tlhegh} "sentence" and {yutlhegh} "spectrum, (musical) scale".
SEE ALSO: pIqaD the native Klingon writing system (n) Degh symbol (n) mIllogh picture, image, (visual) depiction, drawing (n)
-- Voragh tlhIngan ghantoH pIn'a' Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 11/11/2016 3:14 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
'at, bay, chay, Day, 'et, ghay ... 'ut, way, yay, qaghwI'.
To refer to an alphabet, syllabary, etc., we might say *{ngutlhghom} on the model of {mangghom} {army}, {mu'ghom} "dictionary" and {tIjwI'ghom} "boarding party. {ngutlhtlhegh} is another option - see {mu'tlhegh} "sentence" and {yutlhegh} "spectrum, (musical) scale". Are the above a direct quote from 'oqranD ?
No. As Voragh said, it is a pronouncement by Okrand as relayed by ghunchu'wI'. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
As Voragh said, it is a pronouncement by Okrand as relayed by ghunchu'wI'.
I still don't understand; The part from {at, bay..} to "..spectrum, (musical) scale", was said by okrand and relayed by ghunchu'wI, or was it written by voragh in order to explain the previous quote from okrand (which was relayed by ghunchu'wI') ? qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 11 Nov 2016 3:09 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/11/2016 3:14 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
'at, bay, chay, Day, 'et, ghay ... 'ut, way, yay, qaghwI'.> To refer to an alphabet, syllabary, etc., we might say *{ngutlhghom} on the model> of {mangghom} {army}, {mu'ghom} "dictionary" and {tIjwI'ghom} "boarding party.> {ngutlhtlhegh} is another option - see {mu'tlhegh} "sentence" and {yutlhegh} "spectrum, (musical) scale".
Are the above a direct quote from 'oqranD ?
No. As Voragh said, it is a pronouncement by Okrand as relayed by ghunchu'wI'.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 11/11/2016 8:17 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
As Voragh said, it is a pronouncement by Okrand as relayed by ghunchu'wI'.
I still don't understand;
The part from {at, bay..} to "..spectrum, (musical) scale", was said by okrand and relayed by ghunchu'wI, or was it written by voragh in order to explain the previous quote from okrand (which was relayed by ghunchu'wI') ?
The former. The words are ghunchu'wI''s; the canon is Okrand's. Voragh copied and pasted. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
here is my problem.. first voragh writes:
(MO via ghunchu'wI', 7/27/2009): There are names [..]
then he changes paragraph and continues:
E.g. 'at, bay, chay, Day, 'et, ghay ... 'ut, way, yay, qaghwI' [..]
without specifying if this sentence is a continuation of okrand's relayed words. and the icing on the cake comes when he writes:
To refer to an alphabet, syllabary, etc., we might say *{ngutlhghom}..
Okrand's relayed words have the date of 7/27/2009; however the {ngutlh} was revealed on the previous qepHom. So, how is it possible for the part of voragh's post, which contains the {ngutlh}, to be a relayed message from okrand which took place on 2009 ? qunnoq jan puqloD On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 3:44 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/11/2016 8:17 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
As Voragh said, it is a pronouncement by Okrand as relayed by ghunchu'wI'.
I still don't understand;
The part from {at, bay..} to "..spectrum, (musical) scale", was said by okrand and relayed by ghunchu'wI, or was it written by voragh in order to explain the previous quote from okrand (which was relayed by ghunchu'wI') ?
The former. The words are ghunchu'wI''s; the canon is Okrand's. Voragh copied and pasted.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:03 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Okrand's relayed words have the date of 7/27/2009; however the {ngutlh} was revealed on the previous qepHom. So, how is it possible for the part of voragh's post, which contains the {ngutlh}, to be a relayed message from okrand which took place on 2009 ?
qunnoq jan puqloD
vIbHa' MO. pa'logh SuchtaHvIS; jatlh. ~naHQun -- ~Michael Roney, Jr. Freelance Translator
hahaha ! qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 11 Nov 2016 6:07 pm, "Michael Roney, Jr." <nahqun@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:03 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Okrand's relayed words have the date of 7/27/2009; however the {ngutlh} was revealed on the previous qepHom. So, how is it possible for the part of voragh's post, which contains the {ngutlh}, to be a relayed message from okrand which took place on 2009 ?
qunnoq jan puqloD
vIbHa' MO. pa'logh SuchtaHvIS; jatlh.
~naHQun
-- ~Michael Roney, Jr. Freelance Translator
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
qunnoq jan puqloD :
here is my problem.. first voragh writes:
(MO via ghunchu'wI', 7/27/2009): There are names [..]
then he changes paragraph and continues:
E.g. 'at, bay, chay, Day, 'et, ghay ... 'ut, way, yay, qaghwI' [..]
I thought that separating the quotation from the new paragraph with a blank line would be obvious. Apparently not.
without specifying if this sentence is a continuation of okrand's relayed words.
Either way it doesn't really matter as the examples are just that - examples of how the letters would be pronounced - and don't contradict or add anything new to Okrand/ghunchu'wI's comments
and the icing on the cake comes when he writes:
To refer to an alphabet, syllabary, etc., we might say *{ngutlhghom}..
I thought "we might say" would alert you to my speculation. Ditto for *{ngutlhghom} as AFAIK Okrand never tags speculated words with apostrophes. Whenever Okrand releases a new word there is almost always a flurry of speculation and questions on the List.
Okrand's relayed words have the date of 7/27/2009; however the {ngutlh} was revealed on the previous qepHom. So, how is it possible for the part of voragh's post, which contains the {ngutlh}, to be a relayed message from okrand which took place on 2009 ?
For future reference my posts on various words (such as the Word of the Day) are just a copy-and-pasted dump from my notes of anything possibly relevant. Nothing I say is authoritative. Sorry for the confusion. -- Voragh
On 11/11/2016 8:17 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
As Voragh said, it is a pronouncement by Okrand as relayed by ghunchu'wI'.
I still don't understand;
The part from {at, bay..} to "..spectrum, (musical) scale", was said by okrand and relayed by ghunchu'wI, or was it written by voragh in order to explain the previous quote from okrand (which was relayed by[] ghunchu'wI') ?
The former. The words are ghunchu'wI''s; the canon is Okrand's. Voragh copied and pasted.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 11 November 2016 at 14:09, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/11/2016 3:14 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
'at, bay, chay, Day, 'et, ghay ... 'ut, way, yay, qaghwI'.
To refer to an alphabet, syllabary, etc., we might say *{ngutlhghom} on the model of {mangghom} {army}, {mu'ghom} "dictionary" and {tIjwI'ghom} "boarding party. {ngutlhtlhegh} is another option - see {mu'tlhegh} "sentence" and {yutlhegh} "spectrum, (musical) scale".
Are the above a direct quote from 'oqranD ?
No. As Voragh said, it is a pronouncement by Okrand as relayed by ghunchu'wI'.
Actually, I think that part ended before that and those were Voragh's own words. Note the asterisks before the non-canon words. -- De'vID
ghantoH pIn'a' quv, jIHvaD ghu'vam DaQIjchu'ta'mo', jIbel ! reH, lo'laH QaHlIj ! qunnoH jan puqloD On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 6:36 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11 November 2016 at 14:09, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/11/2016 3:14 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
'at, bay, chay, Day, 'et, ghay ... 'ut, way, yay, qaghwI'.
To refer to an alphabet, syllabary, etc., we might say *{ngutlhghom} on the model of {mangghom} {army}, {mu'ghom} "dictionary" and {tIjwI'ghom} "boarding party. {ngutlhtlhegh} is another option - see {mu'tlhegh} "sentence" and {yutlhegh} "spectrum, (musical) scale".
Are the above a direct quote from 'oqranD ?
No. As Voragh said, it is a pronouncement by Okrand as relayed by ghunchu'wI'.
Actually, I think that part ended before that and those were Voragh's own words. Note the asterisks before the non-canon words.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 3:14 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
'at, bay, chay, Day, 'et, ghay ... 'ut, way, yay, qaghwI'. To refer to an alphabet, syllabary, etc., we might say *{ngutlhghom} on the model of {mangghom} {army}, {mu'ghom} "dictionary" and {tIjwI'ghom} "boarding party. {ngutlhtlhegh} is another option - see {mu'tlhegh} "sentence" and {yutlhegh} "spectrum, (musical) scale".
Are the above a direct quote from 'oqranD ?
When you have questions of canonicity, it is often instructive to look at the source of the information. Voragh is pretty good about giving references; in this case "(MO via ghunchu'wI', 7/27/2009)". The mailing list archives are online. http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2009/July/msg00191.html None of it is a direct quote from Dr. Okrand. We are not [yet] in the habit of literally recording everything he speaks. -- ghunchu'wI'
first, when I say "direct quote", I don't mean it in the sense "did he literally say each word". I'm asking about whether he's the source or not. second I'm not questioning voragh. however, before I write something in my notes I want to know who said it. third, when the list archives are easier to search, then I will begin using tem. qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 11 Nov 2016 9:14 pm, "Alan Anderson" <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 3:14 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
'at, bay, chay, Day, 'et, ghay ... 'ut, way, yay, qaghwI'. To refer to an alphabet, syllabary, etc., we might say *{ngutlhghom} on the model of {mangghom} {army}, {mu'ghom} "dictionary" and {tIjwI'ghom} "boarding party. {ngutlhtlhegh} is another option - see {mu'tlhegh} "sentence" and {yutlhegh} "spectrum, (musical) scale".
Are the above a direct quote from 'oqranD ?
When you have questions of canonicity, it is often instructive to look at the source of the information. Voragh is pretty good about giving references; in this case "(MO via ghunchu'wI', 7/27/2009)". The mailing list archives are online.
http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2009/July/msg00191.html
None of it is a direct quote from Dr. Okrand. We are not [yet] in the habit of literally recording everything he speaks.
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Stressing for emphasis IS a grammatical construct, but not usually treated as such. Apparently it's the same in Klingon. lay'tel SIvten On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 2:25 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/9/2016 3:09 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
if I wanted to write: "for YOU I die", I cannot write {SoH'e'vaD jIHegh} because then I would have two type 5 suffixes which is illegal.
Do you see how you did it in English? You didn't use a grammatical construct; you just stressed the word. Do that in Klingon, too.
**SoHvaD* jIHegh*
When speaking, you would stress the *SoHvaD.*
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (8)
-
Alan Anderson -
De'vID -
levinius＠gmx.de -
mayqel qunenoS -
Michael Roney, Jr. -
MorphemeAddict -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel