I found one – and only one – example in the September 2017 “About Netflix” {NETFLIX DelwI’} announcement: reH muchmey chu’laH, mevlaH, ’ej chu’qa’laH lo’wI’. Members can play, pause and resume watching BUT… did Okrand translate this or did Lieven? Since the Klingon and English sentences don’t quite correspond, here it is in full: tera’Daq ’Internet HaSta muchmey peSwI’’e’ Netflix tIn law’, Hoch tIn puS. 190 SepmeyDaq 104 ’uy’ lo’wI’ lutu’lu’ ’ej qaStaHvIS wa’ jaj HaSta muchmey’e’ 125 ’uy’ rep lutIvlu’. lut mIrmey, ja’bogh muchmey, HaSta muchmey lIngbogh Netflix peS je. Hoch’e’ neHbogh lo’wI’ leghlaH ghaH; Hochlogh Hoch DaqDaq Hoch ’Internet rarbogh jan lulo’laH. reH muchmey chu’laH, mevlaH, ’ej chu’qa’laH lo’wI’. malja’ qeSmey, latlh nuQbogh lenmey tu’lu’be’. Netflix is the world’s leading Internet entertainment service with 104 million members in over 190 countries enjoying more than 125 million hours of TV shows and movies per day, including original series, documentaries and feature films. Members can watch as much as they want, anytime, anywhere, on nearly any Internet-connected screen. Members can play, pause and resume watching, all without commercials or commitments. -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons __________________________________________________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> On Behalf Of De'vID Klingon word: mev Part of speech: verb Definition: stop, cease When {mev} is used with an object, has that object ever been anything other than {'e'} where the sentence-as-object as the same subject as the sentence with {'e'} as its object? That is, the subject is what stops/ceases, even if the verb has an object. For example, it seems you can say {jIjatlh 'e' vImev} or {bIjatlh 'e' yImev} or {bIjatlh 'e' Damev}, but you'd have to say {bIjatlh 'e' vImevmoH} or {jIjatlh 'e' yImevmoH} or {jIjatlh 'e' DamevmoH}, adding a {-moH} when the subjects don't match. There's a (non-canon) line in Hamlet's soliloquy which goes: {yIn mevbogh mIwvam'e' wIruchqangbej} "'Tis [i.e., death] a consummation / Devoutly to be wished." Looking at the examples of canon usage, I'm now wondering whether it shouldn't have been {yIn mevmoHvogh mIwvam}. Of course, being Shex'pir, this may not be standard language. {ruch} is also used with a noun object in that sentence as well, which also strikes me as unusual and maybe even wrong. -- De'vID

On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 15:20, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:

I found one – and only one – example in the September 2017 “About Netflix” {NETFLIX DelwI’} announcement:

reH muchmey chu’laH, mevlaH, ’ej chu’qa’laH lo’wI’. Members can play, pause and resume watching

BUT… did Okrand translate this or did Lieven?

This was translated by Lieven. I believe the use of {mev} here is an error, and should've been {mevmoH}. Actually, for "pause", I would've used {yev} ({yevmoH} for someone to pause something else). -- De'vID

On 8/23/2019 10:30 AM, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:

...

This was translated by Lieven. I believe the use of {mev} here is an error, and should've been {mevmoH}.

{mev} can take an object, so it works. {bIjatlh 'e' yImev} is in both TKD and PK.

Yes, but the suggestion is that perhaps *mev* can only take *'e'* (and maybe *net, *I suppose) as an object. Any other time, it's the subject that stops doing something. It seems like the meaning of *mev* changes when its object is *'e'.* Whether this is true, I don't know. But you can conform to canon by following the suggestion.

{mev} also appears six times in paq'batlh, and takes {'e'} as an object each time.

There is also the sentence {not mev peghmey} from PK. It could be that this {mev} could be given an explicit object, such as {not {vIH/vI'/chuS/leng/bogh/vuQ} 'e' lumev peghmev}, or it could be that {mev} has a homonymous intransitive form that is similar to {Dor}.

Except the translation is /Secrets never cease,/ which makes it clear that it's the *peghmey* that are doing something not to be stopped; they're not causing something else not to be stopped. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

{bIjatlh 'e' yImev} only works because the person being ordered to stop is the person who is talking. In the case of a person pausing a device, the person is not the one who is ceasing.

I'm not certain that we could exclude something like {jalth chaH 'e' yImev} based on available information, but it's certainly possible. It would mesh well with this line from KGT: -- The slang usage of -moH is probably influenced by the verb suffix -moH ("cause"), as in {mevmoH} ("cause [someone] to stop" - compare {mev}, "[someone] stops".

I had thought {mev} might've been similar to {meQ}, which can mean both "burn, be burning" and "burn, cause something burn".

I actually started writing my previous e-mail thinking exactly that, based on {not mev peghmey} and {mamevQo' maSuvtaH ma'ov}. However, both of those also work well with "stop [doing something]", so that would be the simplest explanation. //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 17:05 To: tlhIngan-Hol Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Klingon Word of the Day: mev On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 16:30, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se<mailto:felixm@kth.se>> wrote:

This was translated by Lieven. I believe the use of {mev} here is an error, and should've been {mevmoH}.

{mev} can take an object, so it works. {bIjatlh 'e' yImev} is in both TKD and PK. {bIjatlh 'e' yImev} only works because the person being ordered to stop is the person who is talking. In the case of a person pausing a device, the person is not the one who is ceasing. {mev} also appears six times in paq'batlh, and takes {'e'} as an object each time. And in every instance, the subject of {mev} is the subject of the sentence which is its object. {mev} is appropriate, and {mevmoH} is not, in each of those six cases because the subject is not causing someone or something else to stop. There is also the sentence {not mev peghmey} from PK. It could be that this {mev} could be given an explicit object, such as {not {vIH/vI'/chuS/leng/bogh/vuQ} 'e' lumev peghmev}, or it could be that {mev} has a homonymous intransitive form that is similar to {Dor}. I had thought {mev} might've been similar to {meQ}, which can mean both "burn, be burning" and "burn, cause something burn". That is, {mev} could mean both "stop, be in cessation or at an end" and "stop, cause something to be in cessation or at an end". The latter meaning is how it's used in Hamlet and Netflix. But after looking at the canon examples, canon seems to only support the former usage, even in the instances where {mev} takes an object. "Secrets never cease" means "secrets are never in a state of cessation or at an end". Even if we modified the sentence to be {vIH not 'e' mev peghmey} or {vIH peghmey not 'e' mev}, it would still only mean "secrets (themselves) never cease moving", not "secrets never stop something else from moving", "secrets never cease to move something else". I think that would be {mevmoH}. I think the definition "stop, cease" supports this. While "stop" can mean both "be in cessation" or "cause to be in cessation", "cease" only means the former. You can stop talking, you can cease talking, and you can stop someone else's talking, but you can't cease someone else's talking. You have to cause ({-moH}) someone else to cease talking. -- De'vID