On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 3:32 PM John R. Harness <cartweel@gmail.com> wrote:

He replied:

"You're right — the definition of {SIch} in TKD isn't all that helpful. The intended meaning is (b), as in {paqvetlh DaSIchlaH'a'?} — maybe the book's on a high shelf. Or {paq vISIch 'e' vInID}, which could be translated "I reached for the book. The (a) meaning is covered by {paw}."

On Apr 9, 2019, at 4:35 PM, qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote: So does it cover actually being able to grasp the thing? Or is it just the action of extending one's arm (or other appendage) in the direction of an object, whether it gets to the object or not? {puq vISIchtaH} means I'm standing there, with my arm extended, pointing in the direction of a child that I'm trying to touch, but without another sentence no one will know if the touching happens? Just trying to get this clear in my mind. On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 22:43, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:

Since Okrand used {SIch ‘e’ nID} to mean “reach for”, I expect that {SIch} reaches its goal.

Yup. The other example also confirms this: {paqvetlh DaSIchlaH'a'?} only makes sense as a question if {SIch} means successfully touching the thing you're reaching for. (You *can* always *reach for* something, but whether you actually can *reach* it is another question.) -- De'vID

On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 00:36, qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:

...

On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 22:43, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:

...

Since Okrand used {SIch ‘e’ nID} to mean “reach for”, I expect that {SIch} reaches its goal.

Yup. The other example also confirms this: {paqvetlh DaSIchlaH'a'?} only makes sense as a question if {SIch} means successfully touching the thing you're reaching for. (You *can* always *reach for* something, but whether you actually can *reach* it is another question.)

Can you guys translate {paqvetlh DaSIchlaH'a'} without using the English word "reach"?

"Are you able to extend yourself to touch that book?"

I want to know exactly which meaning of "reach" you all mean because to me "reaches its goal" is the same as "arrive at its goal" which Okrand specifically said it wasn't.

He did? Where? He was given two options: "a) arriving to a destination or b) grasping toward something" His answer was: "The intended meaning is (b), as in" followed by two clarifying examples. The meaning he was excluding is something along the lines of "We traveled for two nights and reached Boston". *That* meaning, as he clarified, is {paw}. The expressions "reach its goal" and "arrive at its goal" are metaphors. They're interchangeable only because, in the metaphor, you don't care whether you're extending yourself to reach the goal or moving yourself to arrive at the goal. Okrand's reply was only distinguishing between the *literal* meanings of (a) moving a body (object, etc.) so that it arrives at a destination and (b) extending (part of) a body (object, etc.) to touch something. He said it was (b) "grasping toward something".

He was asked if something was (a) or (b). He gave the answer that it was (b) (i.e., it definitely wasn't (a)), then further clarified what specific sense of (b) was meant with two examples. Note that "grasping toward something" was one of two options presented to him, not words he composed himself. It roughly matched what he meant, but it shouldn't be taken as the definition.

If I use that meaning in the translations it seems to mean something different from what you all are saying:

{SIch 'e' nID} - "He tries to grasp toward something" {paqvetlh DaSIchlaH'a'} - "Are you able to grasp toward that book?"

How would you translate these lines?

{paq vISIch 'e' vInID} "I extended (my arm) to try to grasp the book", "I tried to grasp the book (by extending my arm, etc.)" (i.e., "I reached for the book") {SIch 'e' nID} "He extends (his arm) to try to grasp something", "I tried to grasp something (by extending his arm, etc.)" (i.e., "He reaches for the book") {paqvetlh DaSIchlaH'a'} "Are you able to extend yourself to touch that book?" (i.e., "Can you reach that book?") -- De'vID

On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 10:30 PM qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:

On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 8:27 PM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Can you guys translate {paqvetlh DaSIchlaH'a'} without using the English

...

word "reach"?

"Are you able to extend yourself to touch that book?"

Thanks. That's helpful.

...

...

I want to know exactly which meaning of "reach" you all mean because to me "reaches its goal" is the same as "arrive at its goal" which Okrand specifically said it wasn't.

He did? Where?

In the same place you got that "it definitely wasn't (a)". "Reaches its goal" could literally mean "arrive at its goal", which seems the same as "arrive at a destination" to me.

...

...

How would you translate these lines?

{paq vISIch 'e' vInID} "I extended (my arm) to try to grasp the book", "I tried to grasp the book (by extending my arm, etc.)" (i.e., "I reached for the book") {SIch 'e' nID} "He extends (his arm) to try to grasp something", "I tried to grasp something (by extending his arm, etc.)" (i.e., "He reaches for the book") {paqvetlh DaSIchlaH'a'} "Are you able to extend yourself to touch that book?" (i.e., "Can you reach that book?")

This helps clear things up. So, for you, "reach for" includes the concept of a failed attempt?

For me "reach for" means a successful "reach and grasp/touch", while "reach" on it's own is just the extending part. "Reach for those crisps and hand them to me, won't you dear" was the sort of thing I often hear in my childhood when someone wanted me to pick up something and give it to them. "I tried to reach for the book", "He tried to reach for the book", "Can you reach for the book?" is how they come out in my dialect, hence the confusion.

Thanks for helping me clarify this, and learn more about English in the process :D

qurgh

Something I realized about English from this is that "reach for" (as opposed to just "reach") can also convey continuous aspect, even without the present participle. "He reaches for his gun." I'd render this as *HIchDaj SIchlI'* or some such. ~mIp'av

Am 10.04.2019 um 10:54 schrieb De'vID:

Have you heard the expression "reach for the stars"? For you, would that mean someone was actually touching them?

{Hovmey SIchlaHbe' vay', Hopmo' bIH.}o

These mean slightly different things to me: "Can you reach the book?" - Is it in range if you extend your arm? "Can you reach for the book?" - Would you extend your arm in the book's direction?

I understand it exactly that way (and I always did). For your interest, in German these are two completely different words: - "reach" - "erreichen", with the distance meaning "book on shelf" - "reach for" - "greifen nach", meaning "to grab for something" -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de

I honestly think you have this backwards. A compass needle reaches for the North Pole, but it never reaches it. If I reach for a book, my hand is reaching TOWARD it, but until it reaches the book, it doesn’t touch it. When I make my annual trip to AirVenture to see airplanes, the goal is to reach Oshkosh (in the non{SIch} sense of the word). I’ll arrive “there" {paw} and no longer be "here". When I reach for a book, I’m still “here”. It’s just my hand that is headed over to the book. Even when I reach the book, I’m still here. The whole of me is not at the book; just the part needed to grasp the book and bring it to where I am. Reaching a goal can become squishy, because sometimes we reach physical goals, like Oshkosh, and sometimes we reach for abstract goals, like a new high score at Sudoku on my iPad. If I can still be here while I reach the goal, I suspect I can use {SIch}, but if the goal requires the whole of me to be within the named area, I think I need to use {paw}. The difference between these two verbs is that one involves moving the whole of you to the goal {paw}, while the other involves extending part of you to touch the goal {SIch}. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

...How would you translate these lines?

{paq vISIch 'e' vInID} "I extended (my arm) to try to grasp the book", "I tried to grasp the book (by extending my arm, etc.)" (i.e., "I reached for the book") {SIch 'e' nID} "He extends (his arm) to try to grasp something", "I tried to grasp something (by extending his arm, etc.)" (i.e., "He reaches for the book") {paqvetlh DaSIchlaH'a'} "Are you able to extend yourself to touch that book?" (i.e., "Can you reach that book?")

This helps clear things up. So, for you, "reach for" includes the concept of a failed attempt?

For me "reach for" means a successful "reach and grasp/touch", while "reach" on it's own is just the extending part. "Reach for those crisps and hand them to me, won't you dear" was the sort of thing I often hear in my childhood when someone wanted me to pick up something and give it to them. "I tried to reach for the book", "He tried to reach for the book", "Can you reach for the book?" is how they come out in my dialect, hence the confusion.

Thanks for helping me clarify this, and learn more about English in the process :D

qurgh

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

On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 14:44, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:

I honestly think you have this backwards.

There's more than one dialect of English. There's no requirement that they're consistent. Indeed, there's a famous story about a misunderstanding due to speakers of different dialects of English agreeing to "table" an item during a meeting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_words_having_different_meanings_in_Ame...)

Reaching a goal can become squishy, because sometimes we reach physical goals, like Oshkosh, and sometimes we reach for abstract goals, like a new high score at Sudoku on my iPad. If I can still be here while I reach the goal, I suspect I can use {SIch}, but if the goal requires the whole of me to be within the named area, I think I need to use {paw}.

To "reach a goal" is an idiom based on a metaphor: treating a desired accomplishment as if it were a physical place. If you're climbing Mt. Everest, you can {paw} at the summit. If you're learning to slam dunk a basketball, you can {SIch} the rim. If you've made a new high score at Sudoku on your iPad, I'm sure that's neither {paw} nor {SIch}, but {chav}. In English, these can all be expressed using the verb "reach". In Klingon, they are considered distinct ideas. The difference between these two verbs is that one involves moving the

whole of you to the goal {paw}, while the other involves extending part of you to touch the goal {SIch}.

Agreed. But I think that's clear to everyone? I think the confusion is over whether {SIch} includes the idea of successful contact, which it (apparently) does. -- De'vID

*?chabHom bal qoD ghopwIj vISIch* *I reach my hand into the cookie jar.*

Correction, I should have written *?chabHom bal qoDDaq ghopwIj vISIch*

The continuous and progressive aspects are used when a sentence is meant to express continuousness or progressiveness. *paq vISIch: *I stretch my hand to the book. [...] *SIch* seems to take the thing reached for as its object,

Did I miss anything in the discussion? I understood that {SIch} does NOT mean "reach for", it's "reach" in the sense of "my arm is long enough to touch something, so I can reach it" and not "I try to grab something".

I'd stick to the known interpretation unless more information were forthcoming.

I thought we had this new information?

*paq vISIch; tlhapmeH jan vIlo'*/I use the grabber to reach for and take the book./ That's not how I understood it.

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

I wasn't translating it. If you *SIch* something, you reach for it /and /get it. I didn't say *SIch* means /reach for;/ I said the thing you reach for is the object of *SIch.*

And this is what I thought it is not, but I'm not sure. I think with {SIch}, you do not reach for something, you reach something. There's a big difference between "reach for" and "reach". It seems like Marc's explanation was not clear enough. 'arHa should ask again. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de

Am 10.04.2019 um 18:47 schrieb SuStel:

In English, transitive /reach/ has only the /arrive/ meaning. To refer to the act of stretching out toward something, you use intransitive /reach/ and add a preposition like /for/ or /toward./

I was not entirely aware of that, or I'm missing something. Thanks for the clarification.

English has a lot of words whose meanings change if they've got a preposition associated with them.

Then why did Okrand write "reach" and not "reach for"? Or, the other way around: why was there any confusion about this word, if the meaning changes with the preposition? Okrand usually gives the prepostion when needed (as in "pay for"). Confusing, indeed. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/TheKlingonDictionary

On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 20:38, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:

Am 10.04.2019 um 18:47 schrieb SuStel:

...

English has a lot of words whose meanings change if they've got a preposition associated with them.

Then why did Okrand write "reach" and not "reach for"?

Because {SIch} does map to the concept associated with "reach". Also, while he was writing TKD he never expected the language to take off like it has, and he was also poking fun at the genre of travelers' dictionaries which have word lists with ambiguous glosses.

Or, the other way around: why was there any confusion about this word, if the meaning changes with the preposition?

Huh? The confusion is *due* to the verb's inconsistent meaning due to context and use with prepositions in English. It's the same problem that came up with {DIl} earlier. {DIl} means that the subject is giving out something, to obtain something or fulfil a financial obligation. A short way to gloss that in English is "pay for". But English is inconsistent in that you pay for a meal, pay rent, pay off a mortgage, etc. Same thing for {SIch}. The intended meaning is something like "extend oneself to make contact with the object". A short way to gloss that in English is "reach". Meanings related to this are expressed with prepositions in English: reach for, reach towards, reach out, etc. In Klingon, related meanings are expressed using suffixes and using {SIch} with other verbs (like {'e' nID}).

Okrand usually gives the prepostion when needed (as in "pay for").

Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't. -- De'vID

On 4/10/2019 5:09 PM, Will Martin wrote:

Hmmm. {DIl}

So, I pay a baker five {DeQmey} for a {chab}…

chabDaj vIDIlmeH vutwI’vetlhvaD vagh DeQ vInob.

It works, but it doesn’t give us a very efficient a means of connecting the money with the pie or the person to buy it from.

*chab vIDIl: vagh DeQ.* *chab vIDIl; vutwI'vaD vagh DeQ vInob.* Compare with the efficiency of the English: /I pay five credits for a pie./ /I pay the baker five credits for a pie./ I don't see any problem with efficiency. We know that Klingon will happily shove separate concepts together without any grammatical relationship except "shoved together," and consider it a new concept. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 09:18, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:

Oh dear - the more I learn about the word "reach", the more confusing it gets. :-/ Dictionary.com gives me 10 way to use the verb, and then even the object can be a different one, depending on the preposition.

I'll wait for more examples till I understand this entirely.

More examples about "reach", or more examples about {SIch}? I think the latter is perfectly clear. While Okrand's examples are brief, they were clearly chosen to disambiguate whether actual contact is included in the meaning of {SIch}.

"You're right — the definition of {SIch} in TKD isn't all that helpful. The intended meaning is (b), as in {paqvetlh DaSIchlaH'a'?} — maybe the book's on a high shelf. Or {paq vISIch 'e' vInID}, which could be translated "I reached for the book. The (a) meaning is covered by {paw}."

-- De'vID

Sometimes is useful to see how Okrand uses specific English words himself, e.g. "reach" in KGT (not counting idioms like "reach an age", "reach an agreement", etc.): KGT 99: A diner transfers a portion to his or her plate ..., if one is available, by simply grabbing the desired quantity of food with a hand. If the {'elpI'} (serving platter) is not close by, it is quite acceptable to just reach across the table or to walk around the table to a more convenient position. If necessary, two hands may be used to break off ({wItlh}) a slab of the desired fare. If {ngop} (plates) are provided, they will probably be in a pile somewhere on the table. It is acceptable to reach over and grab one; it is not acceptable to ask someone else to grab a plate and pass it down. He seems to distinguish "reaching across, reaching over" with "grabbing"; the reaching precedes the grabbing. Is this the difference between {SIch} vs. {'uch}? "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?” (Robert Browning, from his "Andrea del Sarto") Voragh -----Original Message----- From: Lieven L. Litaer Am 11.04.2019 um 11:28 schrieb De'vID:

latter is perfectly clear. While Okrand's examples are brief, they were clearly chosen to disambiguate whether actual contact is included in the meaning of {SIch}.

Okrand wrote:

The intended meaning is (b), as in {paqvetlh DaSIchlaH'a'?} — maybe the book's on a high shelf. Or {paq vISIch 'e' vInID}, which could be translated "I reached for the book. The (a) meaning is covered by {paw}."

Okay, I got the point with {paw}, no discussion. But the question {paqvetlh DaSIchlaH'a'} asks whether the goal can be achieved, right? If {SIch} means only "reach for" in the sense of stretching your arm, then it does not include the touching. I can reach for the stars, but surely won't touch them. So if {SIch} includes the touching, the answer to {DaSIchlaH'a'} is only 'yes' if I can touch. If {SIch} is only the movement ("reach-for-stars"), then the answer is always 'yes', unless my arm is broken. But if {SIch} includes both possibilities, both answers 'yes' and 'no' are always correct: I can always reach for something, even if I cannot reach it.

Am 11.04.2019 um 18:29 schrieb SuStel:

*SIch* doesn't mean /reach for;/ it means /reach./ The /reach for/ interpretation only works for his example *paq vISIch 'e' vInID;*

DaH vIyaj. Thanks for clarifying this to me. I think I got it now. majQa'. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de

On 4/11/2019 1:40 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:

On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 12:29 PM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:

*SIch* includes the touching. The answer is only yes.

I presume you wouldn't want that statement taken too literally. Consider a non-contact ammeter. If I'm able to measure the current, I have reached the wire, without ever touching it. So more generally, *SIch* involves getting a body part, implement, etc. close enough to able to do whatever the purpose of *SIch* was, if there was a purpose. *SIch* might not involve purpose, but a result that can occur from getting close enough. *'ul SIrgh veH SIch turmIqlIj pep'en 'e' yIchaw'Qo'!* /Don't whizz on the electric fence!/

You took what I said out of context. Go back to Lieven's email to see why I said that. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 4/11/2019 1:49 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:

On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 1:40 PM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:

On 4/11/2019 1:40 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:

...

On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 12:29 PM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:

*SIch* includes the touching. The answer is only yes.

I presume you wouldn't want that statement taken too literally. Consider a non-contact ammeter. If I'm able to measure the current, I have reached the wire, without ever touching it. So more generally, *SIch* involves getting a body part, implement, etc. close enough to able to do whatever the purpose of *SIch* was, if there was a purpose. *SIch* might not involve purpose, but a result that can occur from getting close enough. *'ul SIrgh veH SIch turmIqlIj pep'en 'e' yIchaw'Qo'!* /Don't whizz on the electric fence!/

You took what I said out of context. Go back to Lieven's email to see why I said that.

Which is why I presumed you didn't intend the statement to be taken too literally.

wejpuH. Lieven QIn Dateqbe'pu' net jalchugh, mu'tlheghwIj DapojHa'be'pu',  vaj QInwIj Dajangbe'pu' 'ej DapojHa'be'pu'. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On 4/11/2019 4:32 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:

SuStel, yIleS jay'!

DIvI' Hol rur tlhIngan Hol vIneH pIj 'e' Dapum, jIghelDI' neH. chotIchba' 'a jIbep'a'?

Nitpicking my meaning in a post you took out of context, which would not have been taken out of context if you hadn't replied to nitpick, is different than me declaring my dislike of Englishisms appearing in Klingon, which has no element of me insulting you in it. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 18:29, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

The correct sense of *reach* in the Dictionary.com definition is number 3: "to succeed in touching or seizing with an outstretched hand, a pole, etc." This is what Okrand describes *SIch* as meaning. It's not clear to me whether it could also mean sense 5: "to stretch or extend so as to touch or meet"; can we say *'aqroS SIch yorghmey** The bookcase reaches the ceiling?*

The season 2 finale of Star Trek: Discovery has this spoken line: "We will wade knee-deep through the ruin of our enemies." {tugh mayIttaHvIS qIvDu'maj SIch jaghpu'ma' pIgh.} Now, this sentence was (probably) not written by Okrand. But it's Star Trek canon, and it's reasonably good Klingon, so I think (at least in L'Rell's dialect) this means that {SIch} can also have Dictionary.com's sense 5. (Now, as to what senses of the English "ruin(s)" the Klingon word {pIgh} has, that's another discussion.) -- De'vID

ja' De'vID:

...

Now, this sentence was (probably) not written by Okrand. But it's Star Trek canon, and it's reasonably good Klingon, so I think (at least in L'Rell's dialect) this means that {SIch} can also have Dictionary.com's sense 5.

Am 21.04.2019 um 18:54 schrieb SuStel:

That's not how we define Okrandian canon round these parts, so I'm leaving the jury out on that.

I agree with SuStel, following the strict seperation between Okrandian canon, and anything else - no matter how good any translation is. I have great respect for Qov's work, but just like any of us she must interpret the words her personal way and may be wrong with ambiguous words. For instance, L'Rell once used the word {'ol} for "confirm" while Maltz gave us the word {woq} for exactly that, almost simulateneously. Qov's problem in tis projekct is that she just can't ask anyone outside and she usually has a lot of time pressure. But again, she did a very good job here, which I do not wish to diminuish here. I'm sure the Klingon Netflix subtitles have mistakes and interpretations as well. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/IsDiscoveryCanon

Am 22.04.2019 um 05:21 schrieb De'vID:

more Klingon than Kahless (I think the Earth expression is "being more Catholic than the Pope").

I like that statement, as it leaves a narrow grey area between black and white giving some room of interpretation. It should just remain a general reminder for beginners who should be aware not to use spoken or written lines from DSC as being a rule for learning. Advanced speakers otoh can use them as good examples. And regarding the words - especially Klingon spellings - I'm absolutely with you. All of the names are not from Okrand, but they are just names, so yes, we shouldn't be more catholic than the pope. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/IsDiscoveryCanon

On Apr 22, 2019, at 02:21, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:

It should just remain a general reminder for beginners who should be aware not to use spoken or written lines from DSC as being a rule for learning. Advanced speakers otoh can use them as good examples.

As somebody who had tried learning Klingon off and on since the time when TNG was still airing new episodes every week, but never got past the point of {nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'} and {matlh, jol yIchu'!} until a little over a year ago, I respectfully disagree. The spoken Klingon in Discovery is what inspired me to try learning Klingon again, in what turned out to be the attempt that was finally successful. The spoken dialog on the show was absolutely a model for Klingon grammar for me, before I knew about Okrandian canon. Even now that I do know about it, I still think it’s a good model for beginning speakers. The lines were spoken clearly enough that I could transcribe them reliably enough to be able to plug my guesses into Hol 'ampaS and/or boQwI' until I landed upon something that made a reasonable pint of sense. The {qeylIS} prayer in particular was an “aha!” moment for me which rekindled some faded memories of the grammar described in TKD and planted the seed for my first fully functional mental model of the Klingon language, as I analyzed words like {matay'taHvIS} and sentences like {maleghmeH yIwovmoH}. The timing of the Duolingo course launch just a few weeks after starting my most recent attempt was good too, as it provided a seemingly endless supply of example sentences to further grow my mental model with. (It seemed endless at the time, after a few weeks it started getting obviously repetitive, but by the time I noticed it was getting repetitive my mental model was taking shape and I probably didn’t really need Duolingo any more.) While I was practicing on Duolingo, I still didn’t know a lick about Okrandian canon, so I obviously also didn’t know that the Duolingo example sentences fell outside of it. Now that I do know about Okrandian canon, I know enough to ask questions like “can a {-taHvIS}ed verb really be used without an accompanying verb indicating another action that occurs during the {-taHvIS}ed activity?” or “can a time adverbial like {reH} be used without a verb?” These are interesting questions to ponder, and to my knowledge neither of these situations is explicitly prohibited by any known rule, but I’m also not aware of any canonical examples to support them. In the context where they are presented on the show (as the “response” line in a “call and response” style interaction) my personal feeling is that it works, even if it does turn out to be, strictly speaking, ungrammatical to do either of those things normally. Is my judgement influenced by the fact that I was exposed to pieces of non-Okrandian-canon text as my earliest “real” Klingon that I could understand? Probably. Does that make me incapable of recognizing the distinction between Okrandian canon and non-canon? I don’t think so. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect beginners to know or care about what Okrandian canon is. Of course I knew who Dr. Marc Okrand was when I started studying Klingon (his name is on the book!), but apart from knowing that he devised the language for Star Trek III, I had no awareness of which specific Star Trek productions he was involved in, or to what extent. I didn’t know that the reason I couldn’t understand the Klingon spoken in the TV shows was because that wasn’t actually Klingon, and thought it was just because I hadn’t learned enough Klingon to understand it yet. In contrast, anybody learning Klingon today can start watching Discovery and immediately begin recognizing the vocabulary and grammar that is described in TKD. We’ve thankfully moved past the days of {maj ram} and {wIj jup} (which, ironically, as obviously bad as they are, got retroactively approved by Dr. Okrand in KGT.) Anyway, I guess my point is that saying something like “beginners should be discouraged from using materials which are not Okrandian canon as examples when first learning the language” does the beginner a disservice. There are plenty of high quality materials which follow the vocabulary and rules set forth by Dr. Okrand which I think are excellent resources to the beginning student of Klingon. Sometimes I wonder what the most extreme, strict, adherence to Okrandian canon might look like. I picture people asserting that it’s not enough to simply use sentences composed by Dr. Okrand as examples of well-formed grammatical sentences, but that *only* full sentences that were composed by Dr. Okrand, so you could say {nIn 'ar wIghaj} but not {nIn 'ar boghaj} or {nav 'ar wIghaj} and everybody just uses the same sentences over and over again to mean different things and the situation starts to resemble the Tamarians from “Darmok” and everybody knows that {nuqDaq yuch Dapol} is only really a question about chocolate in the most limited of circumstances.

On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 at 19:13, Daniel Dadap <daniel@dadap.net> wrote:

Sometimes I wonder what the most extreme, strict, adherence to Okrandian canon might look like. I picture people asserting that it’s not enough to simply use sentences composed by Dr. Okrand as examples of well-formed grammatical sentences, but that *only* full sentences that were composed by Dr. Okrand, so you could say {nIn 'ar wIghaj} but not {nIn 'ar boghaj} or {nav 'ar wIghaj} and everybody just uses the same sentences over and over again to mean different things and the situation starts to resemble the Tamarians from “Darmok” and everybody knows that {nuqDaq yuch Dapol} is only really a question about chocolate in the most limited of circumstances.

In fact, I have experienced exactly this situation. Here's a message from the archive in which I describe it: On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 at 18:56, De'vID jonpIn <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

One of the reasons I started learning Klingon in high school was because one of my best friends and I wanted a secret language we could converse in without other people in our social circle understanding what we were saying, and we were both Star Trek fans. Obviously, I took it much further than she did. :-) Nevertheless, she learned enough to have memorised certain phrases, and these became our little injoke. She never got the prefix system, but memorised certain sentences with fixed prefixes ({pIpIH}, {HIghoS}, etc.) which she'd use correctly, either alone or in a mixed English-Klingon sentence. For example -- mutual friend to me: "We're having a party on Sunday at so and so's."; she to me: {pIpIH}, meaning "you're invited". Yes, she could only say "We are expecting you (sing.)", and not "I am expecting you (sing.)" or "we are expecting you (pl.)", etc. You'd be surprised at how much you can communicate using nothing but sentence fragments from TKD, CK, PK, and a mixture of English, if you allow a high tolerance for error (for example, I'd understand "{HIghoS} cafeteria" to mean "come with me to the cafeteria" if she was with me, or "come to me, I'm in the cafeteria" if she was calling me).

-- De'vID

Am 22.04.2019 um 15:09 schrieb SuStel:

There is, as you say, a /difference/ between Okrandian canon and Star Trek canon. If *poH qut* appears on a Star Trek show but wasn't written or approved by Okrand, it is Star Trek canon, not Okrandian canon.

In addition to this, writers on Memory Alpha do not accept Okrandian canon as Star Trek canon. If the script would reveal a spelling like "po-koot" or so, then /that/ would be the Star Trek canon. It seems silly from our point of view, but their policy is very strict on this. (and I have had many and long discussions with them) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/MemoryAlpha

Am 22.04.2019 um 15:40 schrieb SuStel:

I don't think it's silly at all. Their interest is in Star Trek canon, and rightly so. Fans interested in Star Trek canon have no more reason to accept something Okrand says in a Facebook message to me as Star Trek canon than I do in accepting a line some writer has put in the mouth of a Klingon as Okrandian canon.

I'm not talking about some pesonal facebook message, I'm talking about The Klingon Dictionary, which is Okrand's work that he used to create Klingon in the movies. The following example is not an actual situation, but people on MA would accept "Kappla" if it were written as such in the closed captions, and if I tell them that it's spelled {Qapla'} in TKD, they would say it's not canon, because that's not how it appeared on screen. That's what I see as silly or maybe even quite stubborn to refuse that, although they know that Okrand has written the Klingon words for the movies. I mean, it's the official Klingon dictionary, and not something that some random guy has written. Nevertheless, although I don't agree with them, I accept that it's their policy and let them do it their way - including naming the language "Klingonese". ;-) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/KlingonLanguage

On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 at 15:09, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 4/21/2019 11:21 PM, De'vID wrote:

(TKD even allows such words to be written without a space, like *{poHqut}.) I'm much more likely to use {poH qut} than {jolvoy'} (since Discovery is currently on-air), and also be likelier to be understood. {poH qut} is Okrandian Klingon canon, even if it isn't Okrandian canon.

"Okrandian Klingon canon" isn't a thing. If someone uses grammatically correct Klingon on Star Trek, that doesn't make it closer to Okrandian canon than if someone gets it wrong.

If it isn't a thing, I think it should be. Here's my reason: one day, Marc Okrand will no longer be involved with the Klingon language. (Kahless forbid that it be for any reason other than because he chooses not to be, a long long time in the future.) When that happens, Okrandian canon will be closed. There will be no more new words, or even additional examples or clarifications of existing vocabulary. Marc Okrand is actually officially retired from Klingon. He is not credited in Star Trek: Into Darkness, even though he supplied the original Klingon dialogue, as well as the new dialogue which resulted from having to lip-match to the final edit. The credited Klingon language consultant in that film was Britton Watkins (from whom I learned about Okrand's involvement). Okrand confirmed his involvement in an interview with Lieven, but his name isn't in the film. Similarly, he's not credited in the augments arc in Star Trek: Enterprise. The only reason we know it came from Okrand was because the writer of the episode "Affliction", Mike Sussmann, said so somewhere. Okrand's even less involved in Discovery: {Qov} (credited as Robyn Stewart) wrote most of the lines (I believe with a few contributions from {ghunchu'wI'}, i.e., Alan Anderson). He's going to become even less involved in the shows and movies over time, even as he continues to be involved with the Klingonist community by attending our events and supplying us with information through email (or Facebook or whatever). At some point, the amount of Star Trek canon material using "Okrandian Klingon" (but not by Okrand) will exceed the amount of Klingon actually produced by Okrand. If we could the paq'batlh, which is a considerable amount of text, as coming from Okrand, then I don't think it's been exceeded yet. However, newcomers to Klingon will most certainly be more familiar with Discovery Klingon than Star Trek III Klingon, and this will only become more so over time. Okrand's books are not sitting on store shelves (or whatever the online equivalent is). The tapes are available through an obsolete technology, though I hear that they may be available through some streaming services, but in any case, it's probable that more people know them from transcripts than audio. Newcomers also don't currently have access to back issues of HolQeD, nor are the archives of the defunct newsgroups to which Okrand used to post easily available. I believe Okrand has prepared for this future by basically saying that any Klingon which appears onscreen is real Klingon. That's the reason for the dialects and archaic and ceremonial sentences. What is it that makes Okrand the authority on the language of the Star Trek aliens named Klingons? Originally, it was because he was hired by Paramount to create (or extend, if you prefer) the language. If Okrand had been the inventor of some random constructed language not associated with Star Trek, it's likely that none of us would be studying his language. (There are, nowadays, hundreds of constructed languages online that one could learn.) If someone else had been hired other than Okrand, we'd be studying that person's language instead. (I know one person who's alleged that they were almost hired in place of Okrand.) If Paramount/CBS decides to hire someone else to continue Okrand's work, why shouldn't that authority transfer over if certain conditions are met? Now, I can understand rejecting anything alleged to be Klingon but produced by Paramount/CBS, but which doesn't fit into Okrand's scheme. Just because someone says "forshak" on a Star Trek show, it doesn't make that word a word in Okrand's Klingon. So why is Discovery different? I think the difference is intent, and specifically the fact that someone is credited as a "Klingon language consultant" on a Star Trek show (or movie). If some Star Trek writers makes up something without any care for compatibility with Okrand's work, that's one thing; but if someone credited as a Klingon language consultant (i.e., Okrand's title) is deliberately extending Okrand's work, I do see it as being of a very different nature than a random writer who happens to write grammatically correct Klingon as a by-product. There is, of course, a danger that in the future Paramount/CBS (or whoever the rights holder is then) will hire a "Klingon consultant" who, say, uses Bing and produces gibberish. I think the chances of that are very low, though, because the bar has been raised so high (by Avatar, Game of Thrones, and so on) for constructed languages in world-building. The makers of Star Trek have a relationship with several expert Klingon speakers. I can also understand if someone says, "I want to adhere strictly only to Klingon which comes from Okrand as canon." That's fine. I think that, in the future, there will be two subcommunities of Klingonists, one which holds that certain questions can *never* be resolved (i.e., the jury is eternally out), and one which is happy to consider them resolved when they appear to be resolved onscreen, like with the {SIch} example. I will note that Okrand himself doesn't take "canon" as seriously as some of us do, and is happy to have other people decide what ambiguous words mean. One of the features that he's told me he appreciates about {boQwI'} is that it includes usage examples, because he sometimes doesn't remember, or perhaps doesn't even know, what was meant by an ambiguous definition. When he uses a word, he wants to know how he's used it previously, and also how it's been used in Star Trek novels and shows, as he doesn't like to contradict an existing usage. (Other users have also requested that I add all of the Klingon sentences spoken in Discovery into the {boQwI'} database as entries, as one of the most popular uses of the app is to enter the English subtitle to pull up the Klingon sentence. I've refrained from doing so, partly because some people insist that I shouldn't put any non-canon sentences as entries, but mostly for lack of time. But the opening of T'Kuvma's speech is in there, for example, credited to {Qov}.)

When trying to draw conclusions about what bits of Klingon that appear on Star Trek, we don't get to pick and choose which bits count as canon and which don't.

But don't we? I mean, choosing to treat only what comes from Okrand as canon is still a choice. -- De'vID

On Apr 23, 2019, at 18:57, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I know one person who's alleged that they were almost hired in place of Okrand.

Am 24.04.2019 um 03:58 schrieb Daniel Dadap:

Was that for Klingon, or for Vulcan? Okrand has told the story many times about how his involvement worn Star Trek started with providing lip-match Vulcan dialog for Star Trek II, and that he heard about the need for a linguist to do that through a friend of his who was involved in the production,

That friend was ST:III producer Harve Bennett. And it's true: Okrand was actually a quick replacement for the initial translator, who jumped off very shortly before the production. But Okrand does not remember his name, he told me, and would wish to know if anyone could tell. But at this point, I'm not sure anymore if the initial contact was for Vulcan or for Klingon. I'm sure he talks about it on some interview on youtube, I need to check that again. And this story needs to be archived in the Wiki! -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/KlingonLanguage

The version of this story that I remember was not that they finished work on the Academy Awards early, but that they got there and discovered that the equipment they needed would not arrive until the following week, hence, everyone on Okrand’s crew hanging out for a week with nothing to do. In any case, it was amazingly fortunate for all involved, since it is highly unlikely that anyone else would have put this much work into developing a remarkably functional language, when all that was required of the mission was to fake a few lines for the camera, like they did in the first Star Trek movie, or like Okrand did for Atlantean… I shouldn’t presume… Has anyone here learned Atlantean? The dictionary looks pretty small by comparison to Klingon; maybe five hundred words at the most? Hmm. Fewer. They seem to list “different" words for the same spelling and meaning with different person/number references… Is it worth learning? charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

On Apr 24, 2019, at 2:17 AM, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:

Am 24.04.2019 um 07:48 schrieb Lieven L. Litaer:

...

But at this point, I'm not sure anymore if the initial contact was for Vulcan or for Klingon. I'm sure he talks about it on some interview on youtube, I need to check that again.

Okay, I found it faster than I thought. Just for the record, here is the story (which I've also added to the wiki now).

Source: Marc Okrand in Video interview by "EC Henry": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YnYTSy0iYs

Marc Okrand was in Los Angeles working on the closed captioning for the Academy Awards.

Since he was done with that sooner than expected, he had some spare time and called a friend who lived in L.A. When she heard were he was, she said that this is only a mile away from her job at Paramount Pictures, and she invited him to come for lunch. She was the assistant to Harve Bennett [not mentioned, but according the credits it must be Sylvia Rubinstein], producing Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, which Marc Okrand had also known for a long time too. During the lunch conversation, they talked about how they would redo the Vulcan scene. She mentioned a person who would help them from UCLA (Okrand does not remember his name and would be happy to know), but he was hard to get at the time, being busy all day. The producers needed the job to be done before the end of the week and that was exactly the time Okrand was there, so he suggested that he could do that.

So he just went there and did it. First he met with Kirstey Alley (aka Savik) and a couple of days later he worked with Leonard Nimoy.

He was quite happy when he realized the weird situation that he had just taught Spock how to speak Vulcan.

This is not in the video, but after this, Orand was simply contacted by Harve Bennett to do the Klingon dialogues for ST3.

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

The version I heard him tell recently was that he had arrived early to transfer the scripted portions into the system, but when he arrived they informed him the the scripted portions would not be ready until the end of the week. They told him to come back (on Friday? Saturday?), and ST said they needed the work to be completed before that same day, so it worked out perfectly. Jeremy ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 7:54 AM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Clarification on SIch The version of this story that I remember was not that they finished work on the Academy Awards early, but that they got there and discovered that the equipment they needed would not arrive until the following week, hence, everyone on Okrand’s crew hanging out for a week with nothing to do. In any case, it was amazingly fortunate for all involved, since it is highly unlikely that anyone else would have put this much work into developing a remarkably functional language, when all that was required of the mission was to fake a few lines for the camera, like they did in the first Star Trek movie, or like Okrand did for Atlantean… I shouldn’t presume… Has anyone here learned Atlantean? The dictionary looks pretty small by comparison to Klingon; maybe five hundred words at the most? Hmm. Fewer. They seem to list “different" words for the same spelling and meaning with different person/number references… Is it worth learning? charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’. On Apr 24, 2019, at 2:17 AM, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de<mailto:levinius@gmx.de>> wrote: Am 24.04.2019 um 07:48 schrieb Lieven L. Litaer: But at this point, I'm not sure anymore if the initial contact was for Vulcan or for Klingon. I'm sure he talks about it on some interview on youtube, I need to check that again. Okay, I found it faster than I thought. Just for the record, here is the story (which I've also added to the wiki now). Source: Marc Okrand in Video interview by "EC Henry": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YnYTSy0iYs Marc Okrand was in Los Angeles working on the closed captioning for the Academy Awards. Since he was done with that sooner than expected, he had some spare time and called a friend who lived in L.A. When she heard were he was, she said that this is only a mile away from her job at Paramount Pictures, and she invited him to come for lunch. She was the assistant to Harve Bennett [not mentioned, but according the credits it must be Sylvia Rubinstein], producing Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, which Marc Okrand had also known for a long time too. During the lunch conversation, they talked about how they would redo the Vulcan scene. She mentioned a person who would help them from UCLA (Okrand does not remember his name and would be happy to know), but he was hard to get at the time, being busy all day. The producers needed the job to be done before the end of the week and that was exactly the time Okrand was there, so he suggested that he could do that. So he just went there and did it. First he met with Kirstey Alley (aka Savik) and a couple of days later he worked with Leonard Nimoy. He was quite happy when he realized the weird situation that he had just taught Spock how to speak Vulcan. This is not in the video, but after this, Orand was simply contacted by Harve Bennett to do the Klingon dialogues for ST3. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/KlingonLanguage _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

De'vID:

Here's my reason: one day, Marc Okrand will no longer be involved with the Klingon language.

I've thought of this recently too.. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem accepting anything new as Ca'Non, as long as the following conditions were satisfied: 1: There was an authority recognized within the klingon community, as being *the* official authority on klingon. And by authority, I don't mean "person"; I mean something like the kli, publishing new words or clarifications on grammar. 2: Grammar-wise, the clarifications would come from known grammarians, submitted through kli channels. 3: Vocabulary-wise, new words could be submitted by *all* people, known within the community to be able to actually write a f*** sentence. ..If the above conditions were met, and any new material came through kli, *and through kli only*, then I would be willing to accept new Ca'Non. But I wouldn't use, not even as toilet paper, arguments like: "we'll accept this word or this grammar, because someone who worked on a movie decided so". If we're to understand each other, while using this language, there has to be a central authority/institution/organization, through which new knowledge will be established. ~ m. qunen'oS good.. good.. let the Ca'Non flow through you..

De'vID:

But... that's literally what we do.

True, but luckily for the time being (and hopefully for many years to come), okrand can verify/canonize words and grammar from movies. The problem would be, from the time when okrand decided to retire. I pray to kahless, that this won't happen for many-many-many years to come.. ~ m. qunen'oS

Am 24.04.2019 um 14:47 schrieb Daniel Dadap:

I’ve heard the stories about the ILS, and how they went off and did their own thing with Klingon to the point where ILS Klingon and KLI Klingon were no longer mutually intelligible. I found this quite interesting, so I tried looking into it further, but sadly I wasn’t able to find much information about the ILS or very many samples of Klingon produced by them. Within the small body of text I was able to find, I didn’t encounter anything that I found to be totally incomprehensible.

The ILS had a very loose interpretation of the Klingon language which did not cooperate with how the KLI handled the grammatical rules. I don't know if you found the page at the Klingon wiki, but here are some examples which everyone on this list will agree is not a good way to go: - combining verbs with nouns: "qawQaH" meaning "mnemomics" - using a verb as a noun: "DIpvaD tam" for "pronoun" - Saying that {vI-} means "I" and {wI-} is "we" And there were more of this kind. These are just minor examples, but shows why they got arguments with the KLI who preferred to stick to the rules instead off overbending them. Besides, it is not confirmed, but it seems there were also some monetary problems. The page at the wiki shows several "products" which the ILS planned to publish and to sell. Also, their own translation of Klingon Hamlet was completed in few weeks while the KLI's Hamlet took several months, because they probably put more effort in finding a good solution. Find details here: http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/InterstellarLanguageSchool http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/AlienLanguagePrimer (PS: I'm not saying the ILS was a bad thing; this is a collection of facts for the record. The old KLI wiki had much worse comments on ILS founder Glen Proechel.) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de

The problems with ILS strike me as very similar to the problems that the Deaf community has had with the many efforts one might bundle together under the heading of “Signed English”. The ILS wanted to make Klingon easy to learn (primarily for English speakers), and they wanted to pump out major translations quickly. A better example of the contrast between ILS and KLI would be the ILS translation of the Bible, which was finished in a stunningly brief time, based on the King James version, taking great liberties with the vocabulary, while the KLI’s bible translation project never finished, since it was based upon the most original source material available in Aramaic and Greek, seeking to be meticulous and indisputable — and challenged by the limited Klingon vocabulary, which was not developed in canon in the interest of translating the Bible. The ILS was rumored to be interested in its Bible as a tool for “spreading the good word”, promoting specific religious beliefs. The KLI’s interest in the Bible was more academic, simply because it is a work that has been translated into more languages than any other, (followed by Shakespeare and Agatha Christie), and so being a language the Bible has been translated into, that would add legitimacy to it as a language. If the ILS needed a word, they just mashed together a new word out of bits from existing words. They didn’t care about canon or authority. That wasn’t their mission. I believe that the primary sin of ILS was the asymmetrical focus of translation. It was so important to pump a great deal of English text into Klingon, it seemed far less important to be able to understand the resulting product of translation. It’s like, “Well, I went through the process of translating the English in to the Klingon, so obviously, this impenetrable Klingon text means what the English meant that it was translated from.” There never was the idea that you could take the Klingon text without bringing along the English text to figure out what it means. The Klingon text was less an example of language conveying meaning than it was an example of doing a process to English text in order to produce a product, with its justification being the process one had gone through in order to have produced the product. Note that the KLI managed to get a license from ViaCom to use the Klingon language in materials like The Klingon Hamlet, published through ViaCom’s own publishing house. ILS never got such a license. The KLI takes its fun seriously. ILS was more casual. Aside from the cultural differences, ILS was very much centered around one charismatic person who was doing a cool thing. When he was lost, ILS was lost. While Lawrence might also qualify as a charismatic person, he’s been consistently focused on making the KLI more of a community, relying on the work of a larger group of people. His primary role has been one of coordinator, often seeking ways of giving credit to others for their accomplishments with the language. The KLI never was all about Lawrence the way the ILS was all about Glen. This is why, if Okrand ever officially relinquishes his role of being the origin of all canon, or if he passes on as eventually we all do, then the KLI will need to have matured to a level of organization capable of being the new authority of what is or is not canon, or if the language outgrows the restraints of canon, we’ll still have to be the arbiters of official vocabulary and acceptable grammar. Fortunately, we aren’t facing that challenge just yet. I see my potential of passing before Okrand as a positive feature of my life, so I don’t have to face the political struggles that may ensue. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

On Apr 24, 2019, at 10:42 AM, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:

Am 24.04.2019 um 14:47 schrieb Daniel Dadap:

...

I’ve heard the stories about the ILS, and how they went off and did their own thing with Klingon to the point where ILS Klingon and KLI Klingon were no longer mutually intelligible. I found this quite interesting, so I tried looking into it further, but sadly I wasn’t able to find much information about the ILS or very many samples of Klingon produced by them. Within the small body of text I was able to find, I didn’t encounter anything that I found to be totally incomprehensible.

The ILS had a very loose interpretation of the Klingon language which did not cooperate with how the KLI handled the grammatical rules. I don't know if you found the page at the Klingon wiki, but here are some examples which everyone on this list will agree is not a good way to go:

- combining verbs with nouns: "qawQaH" meaning "mnemomics" - using a verb as a noun: "DIpvaD tam" for "pronoun" - Saying that {vI-} means "I" and {wI-} is "we"

And there were more of this kind. These are just minor examples, but shows why they got arguments with the KLI who preferred to stick to the rules instead off overbending them.

Besides, it is not confirmed, but it seems there were also some monetary problems. The page at the wiki shows several "products" which the ILS planned to publish and to sell. Also, their own translation of Klingon Hamlet was completed in few weeks while the KLI's Hamlet took several months, because they probably put more effort in finding a good solution.

Find details here: http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/InterstellarLanguageSchool http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/AlienLanguagePrimer

(PS: I'm not saying the ILS was a bad thing; this is a collection of facts for the record. The old KLI wiki had much worse comments on ILS founder Glen Proechel.)

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

Am 24.04.2019 um 15:48 schrieb SuStel:

I don't understand the burning desire to proclaim /Discovery/ Klingon as canonical. The translators did their best to stick to canonical Klingon, so it's not like bringing in /Discovery/ Klingon will usher in fantastic new vistas in linguistic understanding. At best it would add additional data points in support of the current status quo of understanding of canonical Klingon, tautologically.

Although I sometimes have had weird and strong arguments and discussions with SuStel, I am thankful for him sometimes being so strict on some rules, and I agree with him here. Our first rule is "Canon = Okrand". There really is no need to change that. If we would accept DSC Klingon dialogues as canon, then we can start using other translations as well. And then the question will be how far can we expand this? Who will decide what is acceptable, what not? I have translated over 8,000 sentences for the subtitles of Netflix; they are on Star Trek, available almost worldwide (sorry for America), and they are even more than what the Klingons have spoken. We have lots of Klingon literature, Klingon songs, Klingon poetry... I keep following the rule that using those translations for learning and practicing are a good base for exercise, but canon is canon and canon is Okrand only. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Canon

On 4/24/2019 10:58 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:

...

On Apr 24, 2019, at 09:32, Lieven L. Litaer<levinius@gmx.de> wrote:

Although I sometimes have had weird and strong arguments and discussions with SuStel, I am thankful for him sometimes being so strict on some rules, and I agree with him here. Our first rule is "Canon = Okrand". There really is no need to change that. Is anybody disputing this?

The closest thing I can find is that De'vID is suggesting that we can consider Klingon that has been used on screen, but which is not Okrandian canon, to be a separate category to Klingon that is not Okrandian canon and has not been used on screen. That seems like a useful distinction to make for its own sake; what people choose to do with the different categories after making such a distinction is up to them. That he uses the word “canon” in the names of categories that are something other than proper Okrandian canon might be a little confusing and perhaps controversial, but I really don’t think he’s disputing that Okrand is the sole source of Okrandian canon.

What he's disputing is what determines "correct" Klingon. If he just wants to label a new category that combines what Okrand says with what /Discovery/ says, that's just a label, no problem. He just needs a better name than Okrandian Klingon canon, as it's not obvious at first glance how it differs from Okrandian canon. But he's not just advocating for a new category. He's arguing Okrand's retirement and ratios of on-screen Klingon to written Klingon. He's talking about people who "adhere strictly only to Klingon which comes from Okrand as canon" which is, I believe, a straw-man argument, since the real issue is identifying what's "correct" Klingon, not enforcing correct Klingon. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 17:29 Jeffrey Clark, <jmclark85@gmail.com> wrote:

Perhaps “Okrandian-Derived Sources” might be more clear?

Yes, that's better. -- De'vID

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:09 AM Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:

If he does eventually give all authority to the language to the KLI, it will have to get serious about establishing protocols and authority roles in order to avoid destructive chaos that could splinter or end interest in the language entirely.

I've always figured some kind of {tlhIngan Hol yejquv} would be the best way to keep things going after Okrand, rather than having one single person as the new authority. (Perhaps its starting members could be suggested by Okrand, to emphasize an Official Line Of Succession.) When questions come in about grammar or vocabulary, they consult each other, make proposals, argue for a while, and then if an agreeable conclusion is reached, make some kind of Official Announcement on the KLI website. If an agreeable conclusion can't be reached, then maybe the varying perspectives can be presented transparently as an actual argument "real" Klingon grammarians are having back on Qo'noS, so both perspectives can still be considered canonical, even if there's disagreement about which is "proper". (Or perhaps I'm underestimating how intense the internal arguments would get...)

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 11:44 AM Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se> wrote: We have seen some Klingon words that show a similar type of

ambitransitive alternation (*ghom*, *choH*, *mev*), and I'm sure others exist, but from an in-universe perspective, there's not much reason to infer that a Klingon verb is an alternating ambitransitive based on whether or not its English gloss is.

It seems this behavior is seen in Klingon verbs like *meQ*, where *-moH* is sometimes dropped. Perhaps this happens due to your out-of-universe explanation, but an in-universe explanation would be the desire for brevity, combined with pragmatics. *chabHom bal qoDDaq ghopwIj vISIchmoH* *I make my hand reach into the cookie jar*, or maybe better *ghopwIjvaD chabHom bal qoD vISIchmoH* would be a safe construction, assuming the body part or implement can be the subject of *SIch*, On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:01 PM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 16:37, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Here are two more things about SIch I'd like clarified. Can it be used with the body part or implement as its object? *?chabHom bal qoD[Daq] ghopwIj vISIch* *I reach my hand into the cookie jar*.

Did someone cut off your hand and put it into a cookie jar, and are you retrieving it (presumably with your other hand)? I read this as "In the cookie jar, I reach my hand."

I'd cite this as an example of the deliberate disuse of pragmatics: resolving ambiguity by following a strict usage rule rather than choosing the most likely possibility as the speaker's intent. Klingons do have some strict usage rules, to be sure, and I'm not saying Klingons actually use *SIch* this way - it was a question - but Klingons do need pragmatics in order to communicate effectively, which in turn can inform usage. I doubt one Klingon would deliberately misunderstand the other simply because of dropping the *-moH* for brevity, unless there was a reason for strictness (like the case of the missing Oxford comma in the labor contract https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/oxford-comma-lawsuit.html). ~mIp'av

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 1:02 PM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 4/10/2019 12:48 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:

It seems this behavior is seen in Klingon verbs like *meQ*, where *-moH* is sometimes dropped. Perhaps this happens due to your out-of-universe explanation, but an in-universe explanation would be the desire for brevity, combined with pragmatics.

Wait, who determined that *-moH* is sometimes dropped from *meQ,* and how did they determine it? I recognize that *meQ* is first defined and used for us as *burn *and is used several times with the subject being the thing that is on fire, and that KGT used it transitively with the thing on fire as the object, but how do you go from that to saying the mechanism behind this is a dropped *-moH? *How do you know it isn't just that the subject and object of the verb are flexible in the same way that English *burn* is? (Which is probably the reason why the usage changed.) Or some other explanation I haven't thought of?

*meQ* used transitively is synonymous with *meQmoH*, right? So you can say *meQmoH* if you like, or you can dispense with *-moH*. But yes, there's no telling whether the transitive or intransitive sense came first. If *meQ* is just flexible like English *burn*, wouldn't you like to know what other Klingon verbs are flexible in this way?

I'd cite this as an example of the deliberate disuse of pragmatics: resolving ambiguity by following a strict usage rule rather than choosing the most likely possibility as the speaker's intent.

You can't just declare that anything that seems wrong, but that you can manage to understand anyway, is done intentionally and to be accepted. I can usually understand Bingon, but I'm not going to call it acceptable language variation. You can hypothesize something like this, but it's just speculation, especially if you simply label every Englishism you see in this way.

I don't simply label every Englishism I see in this way. I do expect acceptable language variation in Klingon to be strongly influenced by the desire for brevity, as in clipped Klingon, with idiomatic usage as an opposing force. pab'e' Sovlu'bogh, rut chIch vIpabHa'. chaq jaSHa' pabHa' tlhInganpu' 'e' vIpIHlaH 'ach vISovlaHbe'. pabHa'law'chugh latlh, SIchDaj vIyaj 'e' vInID. pabHey lo'bogh vIlajnISbe' 'ach SIbI' vIlajQo' net poQbe'. ~mIp'av

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 2:26 PM SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

The fact that you can (apparently) say *meQ* or *meQmoH* to mean the same thing doesn't mean that one necessarily arises from a dropping or adding of *-moH* for brevity or pragmatics. That's one possible reason, but there are others.

And we don't actually *know* that you can say *meQmoH* and mean *burn (something).* Maybe the existence of transitive *meQ* means Klingons don't accept the use of *meQmoH* at all, because that would be silly. I'm not saying this is the case, just that we don't know.

*jIbDaj lumeQmoH jIbDaj lumeQmoH qul bIQtIq qulHommey* *Sparks from the fire river Caught his hair, Caught his hair.* (paq'batlh, paq'yav, canto 12, lines 4-6, page 86-87) (My guess is that Okrand started paying more attention to verb transitivity in between KGT and PB, although this doesn't really help fit earlier examples into a consistent grammar.)

My old argument about this, when we were figuring out how {vIH} worked, was that we had a better mechanism for converting an intransitive interpretation with {-moH} to make it transitive than we had for converting a transitive interpretation (with {-egh} perhaps?) into an intransitive meaning, since things that move are not necessarily caused to move by themselves. Then, of course, Okrand had to come up with things {-eghmoH}ing. [sigh] Maybe I should have stuck with French as a second language... charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

On Apr 10, 2019, at 12:48 PM, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 11:44 AM Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se <mailto:felixm@kth.se>> wrote:

We have seen some Klingon words that show a similar type of ambitransitive alternation (ghom, choH, mev), and I'm sure others exist, but from an in-universe perspective, there's not much reason to infer that a Klingon verb is an alternating ambitransitive based on whether or not its English gloss is.

It seems this behavior is seen in Klingon verbs like meQ, where -moH is sometimes dropped. Perhaps this happens due to your out-of-universe explanation, but an in-universe explanation would be the desire for brevity, combined with pragmatics.

chabHom bal qoDDaq ghopwIj vISIchmoH I make my hand reach into the cookie jar, or maybe better ghopwIjvaD chabHom bal qoD vISIchmoH would be a safe construction, assuming the body part or implement can be the subject of SIch,

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:01 PM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com <mailto:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 16:37, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com <mailto:bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com>> wrote: Here are two more things about SIch I'd like clarified. Can it be used with the body part or implement as its object? ?chabHom bal qoD[Daq] ghopwIj vISIch I reach my hand into the cookie jar.

Did someone cut off your hand and put it into a cookie jar, and are you retrieving it (presumably with your other hand)? I read this as "In the cookie jar, I reach my hand."

I'd cite this as an example of the deliberate disuse of pragmatics: resolving ambiguity by following a strict usage rule rather than choosing the most likely possibility as the speaker's intent. Klingons do have some strict usage rules, to be sure, and I'm not saying Klingons actually use SIch this way - it was a question - but Klingons do need pragmatics in order to communicate effectively, which in turn can inform usage. I doubt one Klingon would deliberately misunderstand the other simply because of dropping the -moH for brevity, unless there was a reason for strictness (like the case of the missing Oxford comma in the labor contract https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/oxford-comma-lawsuit.html <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/oxford-comma-lawsuit.html>).

~mIp'av

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

On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 18:47, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 11:44 AM Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se> wrote:

We have seen some Klingon words that show a similar type of

...

ambitransitive alternation (*ghom*, *choH*, *mev*), and I'm sure others exist, but from an in-universe perspective, there's not much reason to infer that a Klingon verb is an alternating ambitransitive based on whether or not its English gloss is.

It seems this behavior is seen in Klingon verbs like *meQ*, where *-moH* is sometimes dropped. Perhaps this happens due to your out-of-universe explanation, but an in-universe explanation would be the desire for brevity, combined with pragmatics.

I don't believe that this is the case. But even if it were, {SIch} doesn't fit the pattern: all of the listed ambitransitive verbs have the same valency. The verb {V} doesn't take an object, and {V x} means "x verbs" while {x V[moH] y} means "y verbs x". {z SIch x} means "x reaches z". There's no justification why {z-vaD/-Daq y SIch x} would suddenly mean "x reaches y (i.e., x uses y to reach) into z". Also, there are maybe a dozen ambitransitive verbs out of over a thousand root verbs. Without any reason to believe a verb is ambitransitive, the prior probability is that it isn't. Furthermore, we do have data: Okrand gave us two examples of its usage. If he had intended it to be ambitransitive, he would've given an example where it's used that way.

*chabHom bal qoDDaq ghopwIj vISIchmoH* *I make my hand reach into the cookie jar*, or maybe better *ghopwIjvaD chabHom bal qoD vISIchmoH* would be a safe construction, assuming the body part or implement can be the subject of *SIch*,

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:01 PM De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 16:37, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Here are two more things about SIch I'd like clarified. Can it be used with the body part or implement as its object? *?chabHom bal qoD[Daq] ghopwIj vISIch* *I reach my hand into the cookie jar*.

Did someone cut off your hand and put it into a cookie jar, and are you retrieving it (presumably with your other hand)? I read this as "In the cookie jar, I reach my hand."

I'd cite this as an example of the deliberate disuse of pragmatics: resolving ambiguity by following a strict usage rule rather than choosing the most likely possibility as the speaker's intent.

What ambiguity? As I understand it, the sentence isn't ambiguous: it unambiguously means how I read it. Also, the fact that a speaker most likely means something doesn't imply that what they said is what they mean. If you had said to me, "A wall I drove into my car", I'd infer that you probably drove your car into the wall. That doesn't make that sentence have that meaning, or grammatical. If you had said that Klingon sentence to me, yeah, I'd probably guess that you meant you put your hand into the cookie jar, but I'd also think you misspoke. -- De'vID

On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 16:37, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:

Here are two more things about SIch I'd like clarified. Can it be used with the body part or implement as its object? *?chabHom bal qoD[Daq] ghopwIj vISIch* *I reach my hand into the cookie jar*.

Did someone cut off your hand and put it into a cookie jar, and are you retrieving it (presumably with your other hand)? I read this as "In the cookie jar, I reach my hand."

Or can the body part or implement be the subject? *?chabHom bal qoD SIch ghopwIj* *My hand reaches into the cookie jar.*

If {chal luSIch beychaj} is possible, I don't see why {ghopwIj} can't be the subject of {SIch}. -- De'vID

On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 18:40, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 4/10/2019 12:01 PM, De'vID wrote:

If {chal luSIch beychaj} is possible, I don't see why {ghopwIj} can't be the subject of {SIch}.

The interesting thing about this line in *paq'batlh* is that with the new information about *SIch,* we must conclude that the howls are not moving from their mouths and arriving in the sky, but rather stretching from their mouths to the sky, never actually leaving their mouths. In English we usually think of a sound as leaving its source and arriving at a destination; in Klingon — at least, in this sentence — a sound extends from its source to its destination without being disconnected from its source.

jachlu'DI', wanI' DelmeH /{wab tIH} bachlu'/ mu'mey lo' tlhInganpu' 'e' vISIv. -- De'vID