I want to say "8 'o clock in the morning". Should I say {po 8 am}, or {8 am po} ? (I didn't write the time in klingon for simplicity..) ~ cxcxcxx 'u' veQ chaH tlhInganpu''e'
On 9/11/2019 9:36 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
I want to say "8 'o clock in the morning".
Should I say {po 8 am}, or {8 am po} ?
(I didn't write the time in klingon for simplicity..)
Neither. Write "8 am." The /am/ means it's morning. In Klingon, write *chorgh vatlh rep.* If you can't be bothered to write it out, just write /0800./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Apparently you use 24-hour "military time" style. From “TalkNow!”: chorghvatlh rep eight o'clock a.m. (08:00) “eight hundred hours” cha'maH vatlh rep eight o'clock p.m. (20:00) “twenty hundred hours” This way you don’t need {po} “morning” at all. Okrand used a slightly different version in “Conversational Klingon”, e.g. vagh rep bImejnIS. Check out time is five A.M. (CK) This may just be an abbreviated version without {vatlh} however. There is also another - more traditional - way to talk about the time. Here is Okrand’s st.klingon post in full: ************************************************************************** From: Marc Okrand Newsgroups: startrek.klingon Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 Subject: Re: wanI' to replace time related relative pronoun Will Martin wrote:
Meanwhile, wouldn't it be really cool if Marc Okrand just told us how to
deal with time issues like this? I mean, "What time is it?" seems like a
basic enough question. The only answer he has given us so far is the
possible idiom tlhaqwIj chu'Ha'lu'pu'. I would think a Klingon would
have a more straight-forward way of asking what time it is. Or maybe a
Klingon simply would not ask what time it is unless his tlhaq was broken
or missing?
Actually, there are several ways to ask "What time is it?" in Klingon. Here are a couple. In dealing with time in interplanetary communication, Klingons have come to use the 24-hour system favored by the Federation. There are 24 hours in a day (meaning 24 Earth hours in an Earth day), numbered one through 24. For example: tera' rep wa' "Earth hour one" or "one o'clock" tera' rep cha'maH "Earth hour 20" or "20 o'clock" or "eight o'clock p.m." tera' rep loS wejmaH "Earth hour 4:30" If the context is clear, the word tera' "Earth" may be left out: rep cha'maH "20 o'clock, eight o'clock p.m." When working within this system, one doesn't inquire as to the time; one demands that the number of the current hour be specified. Thus, the equivalent expression to "What time is it?" is a command: rep yIper! "Ascertain the hour! Specify the hour!" This is literally "Label the hour!". Though the verb per "label" is usually used in the sense of "attach or assign a name to," it can also be used for such notions as "ascertain, specify, pin down." This is not considered slang or idiomatic. When giving the time using this system, hours are numbered, not counted. That is, one says rep cha' "hour two, hour number two, two o'clock," not cha' rep or cha' repmey "two hours" (a plural suffix, here -mey, is not needed when a number modifies a noun, but it is sometimes used anyway). Accordingly, it is not customary to ask for the time by saying rep tItogh or repmey tItogh "Count the hours!". In nonmilitary contexts (as rare as these may be) and in situations where interplanetary communication is not a concern, the most common way of asking "What time is it?" in Klingon is quite different. It is based on the way the question was asked long ago, in a time before Klingons traveled around the galaxy and before there was any significant amount of interaction between Klingons and residents of other planets: 'arlogh Qoylu'pu'? This is literally "How many times has (someone) heard (it)?" or "How many times has it been heard?" ('arlogh "how many times?" a word that functions adverbially, made up of the question word 'ar "how much? how many?" and the special number suffix -logh "times" [as in "six times"]; Qoylu'pu' "someone has heard (it)," made up of Qoy "hear," -lu' "indefinite subject," -pu' "perfective," that is, the action has been completed). What is not clear from this locution is what it is that has supposedly been heard. In modern Klingon, the "what" in this phrase is never expressed. It appears as though, long ago, at least some Klingons were notified of the time by some audible signal (though what means were used to calculate the time in the first place remain to be discovered). Perhaps this signal was a specific sound (a person shouting? a beat on a drum? a gong? the growl of an animal?) and that word was originally part of the expression, for example, 'arlogh bey Qoylu'pu'? "How many times has someone heard the howl? How many times has the howl been heard?". Or maybe the expression contained a more general word such as ghum "alarm" or wab "sound, noise": 'arlogh wab Qoylu'pu'? "How many times has someone heard the sound? How many times has the sound been heard?" It has also been speculated that there was once a bit more to this expression, namely an element stating the time period the questioner was concerned about. For example, maybe people said: DaHjaj 'arlogh Qoylu'pu'? That is, "Today, how many times has someone heard it?", suggesting that the questioner is concerned about how much time has gone by "today" (as opposed to, say, "this week"). Or maybe the fuller expression was a little less specific: qen 'arlogh Qoylu'pu'? "Recently, how many times has someone heard it?" (qen "recently, a short time ago"). Regardless of its original full form, the expression comes down to us now as simply 'arlogh Qoylu'pu'?. The phrase is considered an idiom because what it means ("What time is it?") cannot be understood on the basis of the meanings of its components ("How many times has someone heard it?"). The answer to the question 'arlogh "How many times?" is, as might be expected, X-logh, where X is some number. For example: cha'logh Qoylu'pu'. This is literally "Someone has heard it twice" or "It has been heard twice" (cha'logh "twice," from cha' "two" plus -logh "times"). This is the Klingon equivalent to "It's two o'clock." Originally, this was a statement of time in the traditional Klingon system, but it is now also used for the 24-hour system. The idiomatic 'arlogh Qoylu'pu' also shows up in such questions as "What time do we leave?": mamejDI' 'arlogh Qoylu'pu'? This is literally "When we leave, how many times will someone have heard (it)?" or "When we leave, how many times will it have been heard?". An answer might be "We (will) leave at eight o'clock: mamejDI' chorghlogh Qoylu'pu' Literally, "When we leave, someone will have heard (it) eight times". Since subordinate clauses such as mamejDI' "when we leave" can come before or after the main clause, it's also possible to say: 'arlogh Qoylu'pu' mamejDI'? chorghlogh Qoylu'pu' mamejDI'. Literally, "How many times will someone have heard (it) when we leave? Someone will have heard (it) eight times when we leave." In actual conversation, of course, it's usually not so repetitive. You'd probably hear: 'arlogh Qoylu'pu' mamejDI'? chorghlogh Qoylu'pu'. "How many times will someone have heard (it) when we leave? Someone will have heard (it) eight times." Or even: 'arlogh Qoylu'pu' mamejDI'? chorghlogh. "How many times will someone have heard (it) when we leave? Eight times." ************************************************************************* -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mayqel qunen'oS I want to say "8 'o clock in the morning". Should I say {po 8 am}, or {8 am po} ? (I didn't write the time in klingon for simplicity..)
I think I've asked about this in the past too, but I've forgotten the answer. How does one tell the time, by the use of {Qoylu'pu'} when the time isn't a "round" number ? How do we say by the {Qoylu'pu'}, that it's 21.45 ? ~ cncncnn
On 9/11/2019 11:08 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
I think I've asked about this in the past too, but I've forgotten the answer.
How does one tell the time, by the use of {Qoylu'pu'} when the time isn't a "round" number ?
How do we say by the {Qoylu'pu'}, that it's 21.45 ?
I don't think we know. If you take the expression literally, the answer would be to say *cha'maH wa'logh Qoylu'pu'*/it has been heard twenty-one times./ Because at 21:45 whatever /it/ is has been heard twenty-one times. The idiom does not seem to describe fractions of an hour. Given that the *Qoylu'pu' *idiom is supposed to be the most common way to tell the time outside of a military or interplanetary context, even though a non-military context is said to be rare, it seems odd to me that there would be no way to be more specific. Who knows? Maybe they say something like *loSmaH vagh tup ret cha'maH wa'logh Qoylu'pu'* /forty-five minutes ago it had been heard twenty-one times./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
In practice I imagine a combination of systems is used: Q: 'arlogh Qoylu'pu'? What’s the time? A: Hutlogh Qoylu'pu'. Gone nine. / It’s after nine. Q: rep yIper, lagh! Be specific ensign! A: Hutvatlh wa’maH wej rep, qaH! 09:13 hours, sir! -- Voragh From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of SuStel On 9/11/2019 11:08 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote: I think I've asked about this in the past too, but I've forgotten the answer. How does one tell the time, by the use of {Qoylu'pu'} when the time isn't a "round" number ? How do we say by the {Qoylu'pu'}, that it's 21.45 ? I don't think we know. If you take the expression literally, the answer would be to say cha'maH wa'logh Qoylu'pu' it has been heard twenty-one times. Because at 21:45 whatever it is has been heard twenty-one times. The idiom does not seem to describe fractions of an hour. Given that the Qoylu'pu' idiom is supposed to be the most common way to tell the time outside of a military or interplanetary context, even though a non-military context is said to be rare, it seems odd to me that there would be no way to be more specific. Who knows? Maybe they say something like loSmaH vagh tup ret cha'maH wa'logh Qoylu'pu' forty-five minutes ago it had been heard twenty-one times. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:36 PM Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
In practice I imagine a combination of systems is used:
Q: 'arlogh Qoylu'pu'? What’s the time? A: Hutlogh Qoylu'pu'.
Gone nine. / It’s after nine.
Q: rep yIper, lagh!
Be specific ensign! A: Hutvatlh wa’maH wej rep, qaH!
09:13 hours, sir!
If the {'arlogh Qoylu'pu'} idiom isn't used to specify fractions of the hour, it might be the case that you don't bother with it in the first place if you know you need an answer more precise than an hour. So the {ghelwI'} in this dialogue should probably have just started with {rep yIper, lagh!} if they knew they needed the minutes too.
I quite agree, {rep yIper} would be better if the captain wanted the exact time… or even {rep yIperchu’!} if he needed it down to the second. But I was just thinking he was gently (for a Klingon) reminding the ensign of the old adage: "A Klingon may be inaccurate, but he is never approximate." Voragh From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of nIqolay Q On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:36 PM Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu<mailto:sboozer@uchicago.edu>> wrote: In practice I imagine a combination of systems is used: Q: 'arlogh Qoylu'pu'? What’s the time? A: Hutlogh Qoylu'pu'. Gone nine. / It’s after nine. Q: rep yIper, lagh! Be specific ensign! A: Hutvatlh wa’maH wej rep, qaH! 09:13 hours, sir! If the {'arlogh Qoylu'pu'} idiom isn't used to specify fractions of the hour, it might be the case that you don't bother with it in the first place if you know you need an answer more precise than an hour. So the {ghelwI'} in this dialogue should probably have just started with {rep yIper, lagh!} if they knew they needed the minutes too.
On 9/11/2019 1:25 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
If the {'arlogh Qoylu'pu'} idiom isn't used to specify fractions of the hour, it might be the case that you don't bother with it in the first place if you know you need an answer more precise than an hour. So the {ghelwI'} in this dialogue should probably have just started with {rep yIper, lagh!} if they knew they needed the minutes too.
Except we're told that *rep yIper* and *'arlogh Qoylu'pu'* are generally used in different contexts. Unless non-military or interplanetary contexts mean you don't care about precision, *rep yIper* is not simply a more precise version of *'arlogh Qoylu'pu',* and you wouldn't simply substitute them. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Why not? Generally doesn’t mean always. When I was in the Navy people intermixed both civilian and military systems constantly: e.g. It’s four o’clock / four A.M. / four in the morning / 04:00 (“oh four hundred”) (hours), etc. We also used a third system which divides a four-hour watch into half-hour increments, each signaled by one stroke on the ship’s bell and broadcast on the ship’s 1MC (public address system) throughout the day and night. Starting at midnight, for example, “eight bells” is 04:00, the end of the mid (middle) watch. {chorghlogh Qoy’lu’pu’} indeed. For those unfamiliar with this system see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship%27s_bell and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchkeeping . -- Voragh From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of SuStel On 9/11/2019 1:25 PM, nIqolay Q wrote: If the {'arlogh Qoylu'pu'} idiom isn't used to specify fractions of the hour, it might be the case that you don't bother with it in the first place if you know you need an answer more precise than an hour. So the {ghelwI'} in this dialogue should probably have just started with {rep yIper, lagh!} if they knew they needed the minutes too. Except we're told that rep yIper and 'arlogh Qoylu'pu' are generally used in different contexts. Unless non-military or interplanetary contexts mean you don't care about precision, rep yIper is not simply a more precise version of 'arlogh Qoylu'pu', and you wouldn't simply substitute them. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 9/11/2019 2:42 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
Why not? Generally doesn’t mean always. When I was in the Navy people intermixed both civilian and military systems constantly:
"Generally" not doing something means you're not "constantly" doing it. I would say your Navy experience does not correspond to what Okrand describes in his message. The Navy is not Klingon society. The description of *'arlogh Qoylu'pu'* suggests that most of the time Klingons will use "military time" in one way or another. Okrand suggests that non-military contexts are somewhat rare, and don't forget how /Power Klingon/ tells us that nearly everyone wears military markings. The use of *Qoylu'pu'* among Klingons to tell the time will be rare. We can easily imagine such contexts. A Klingon child is told to go to bed; he or she demands to know, *'arlogh Qoylu'pu'?* A couple are in bed after mating, and one of them is due to ship out at 0730 hours; he or she might ask, *'arlogh Qoylu'pu'?* But if you're aboard your ship and someone wants to know when this week's in-flight movie starts, they'd say *rep yIper,* because "military time" is likely the standard throughout the Empire. So the question is whether you can express not-on-the-hour times with *Qoylu'pu',* not whether you can substitute a military time answer in a non-military context. And that, we don't know. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Yeah *Qoylu'pu'* is really just to be used for round hours and every in between is expressed with *rep* taH taH taH. po chorghvatlh wejmaH vagh rep jIvempu'. *am* *pm* tIlo'Qo'. po 'oS AM 'ej pov 'oS PM, roma Hol jatlhlu'chugh. Le mer. 11 sept. 2019, à 12 h 49, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> a écrit :
On 9/11/2019 1:25 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
If the {'arlogh Qoylu'pu'} idiom isn't used to specify fractions of the hour, it might be the case that you don't bother with it in the first place if you know you need an answer more precise than an hour. So the {ghelwI'} in this dialogue should probably have just started with {rep yIper, lagh!} if they knew they needed the minutes too.
Except we're told that *rep yIper* and *'arlogh Qoylu'pu'* are generally used in different contexts. Unless non-military or interplanetary contexts mean you don't care about precision, *rep yIper* is not simply a more precise version of *'arlogh Qoylu'pu',* and you wouldn't simply substitute them.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (5)
-
Jackson Bradley -
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel