SPOILER FREE information from Maltz about a word used in the Klingon subtitles of Star Trek: Discovery: a "palace". -------------------------------- In English, a "castle" is (typically) a building built for protection or fortification. It can, but doesn't have to be, pretty fancy, but its primary function is defense. A "palace," on the other hand, is (typically) a building built to show off wealth, power, and/or importance, but it's not necessarily the best place to be during a battle. Having said that, in day-to-day 21st-Century English, the distinction isn't always so clear. For Klingons, the distinction is also a little murky, since they would never construct a "palace" (a home for the emperor or some other important person) that was not designed deal with battles. They might construct a "castle," though, that wasn't particularly lavish and not a suitable place for an official residence of the emperor. The word for such a structure — elegant or otherwise -- is {jem'IH}. The emperor's castle/palace is simply {ta' jem'IH}. If, however, the emphasis is to be on the elegance or grandeur of the {jem'IH}, there's another word that can be used: {DuHmor}. A {DuHmor} is a type of {jem'IH}, so it's a good place for the emperor to hang out. For clarify, you can say {ta' DuHmor}. The emperor's official residence would more likely be referred to as a {DuHmor} than a {jem'IH}, but not necessarily always. Klingon ships, of course, are battle-ready, so any ship designed to be the residence of the emperor might, I suppose, be referred to as a {jem'IH} or {ta' jem'IH}. And if it's a particularly grand place, then {DuHmor} or {ta' DuHmor} could make sense. (Maybe those are short for {jem'IH Duj} and {DuHmor Duj}.) -------------------------------- -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.net http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/DSC110
From the description, I take it «jem'IH» could also be translated as "fortress" or "(permanent) military base" (see also: «waw'»), at least if it's a particularly grand one. Fort Knox strikes me as a non-castle that might be called a «jem'IH».
I suppose a mansion that is built both for grandeur and defense might be called a «DuHmorHom», or perhaps just an outright «DuHmor» if it's grand enough. Perhaps to clarify that it serves as a home, you could call it a «juH DuHmor». A grand mausoleum such as the Taj Mahal might perhaps be called «nol DuHmor». Not sure about its defenses, though; perhaps it's more of a «nol qach'a'». //loghaD ________________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> Sent: Monday, January 1, 2018 10:32:26 PM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: [tlhIngan Hol] Maltz about castles SPOILER FREE information from Maltz about a word used in the Klingon subtitles of Star Trek: Discovery: a "palace". -------------------------------- In English, a "castle" is (typically) a building built for protection or fortification. It can, but doesn't have to be, pretty fancy, but its primary function is defense. A "palace," on the other hand, is (typically) a building built to show off wealth, power, and/or importance, but it's not necessarily the best place to be during a battle. Having said that, in day-to-day 21st-Century English, the distinction isn't always so clear. For Klingons, the distinction is also a little murky, since they would never construct a "palace" (a home for the emperor or some other important person) that was not designed deal with battles. They might construct a "castle," though, that wasn't particularly lavish and not a suitable place for an official residence of the emperor. The word for such a structure — elegant or otherwise -- is {jem'IH}. The emperor's castle/palace is simply {ta' jem'IH}. If, however, the emphasis is to be on the elegance or grandeur of the {jem'IH}, there's another word that can be used: {DuHmor}. A {DuHmor} is a type of {jem'IH}, so it's a good place for the emperor to hang out. For clarify, you can say {ta' DuHmor}. The emperor's official residence would more likely be referred to as a {DuHmor} than a {jem'IH}, but not necessarily always. Klingon ships, of course, are battle-ready, so any ship designed to be the residence of the emperor might, I suppose, be referred to as a {jem'IH} or {ta' jem'IH}. And if it's a particularly grand place, then {DuHmor} or {ta' DuHmor} could make sense. (Maybe those are short for {jem'IH Duj} and {DuHmor Duj}.) -------------------------------- -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.net http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/DSC110 _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se> wrote:
From the description, I take it «jem'IH» could also be translated as "fortress" or "(permanent) military base" (see also: «waw'»), at least if it's a particularly grand one. Fort Knox strikes me as a non-castle that might be called a «jem'IH».
I suppose a mansion that is built both for grandeur and defense might be called a «DuHmorHom», or perhaps just an outright «DuHmor» if it's grand enough. Perhaps to clarify that it serves as a home, you could call it a «juH DuHmor».
A grand mausoleum such as the Taj Mahal might perhaps be called «nol DuHmor». Not sure about its defenses, though; perhaps it's more of a «nol qach'a'».
Would {nol} be the right noun here? The focus of a mausoleum is less on the funeral ceremony itself, and more on the fact that the person is interred inside. Given that the dominant cultural attitude towards corpses among Klingons is "when I'm dead, just throw me in the trash", there's not a lot of vocabulary for various ways of keeping bodies around. Something like {nebeylI' DuHmor} "fancy sarcophagus palace" might work better for the Taj Mahal.
On 1/2/2018 11:41 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
Given that the dominant cultural attitude towards corpses among Klingons is "when I'm dead, just throw me in the trash"
This idea has been undermined many times since it was first aired. It also doesn't account for the possibility that the attitude might be a modern, and even local, one. That is, not all Klingons, past and present, necessarily consider a corpse to be an useless, empty shell. I don't think you can draw any linguistic conclusions from it. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
nIqolay Q:
Given that the dominant cultural attitude towards corpses among Klingons is "when I'm dead, just throw me in the trash"
hahaha ! pov ! ~ nI'ghma On Jan 2, 2018 6:50 PM, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 1/2/2018 11:41 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
Given that the dominant cultural attitude towards corpses among Klingons is "when I'm dead, just throw me in the trash"
This idea has been undermined many times since it was first aired. It also doesn't account for the possibility that the attitude might be a modern, and even local, one. That is, not all Klingons, past and present, necessarily consider a corpse to be an useless, empty shell. I don't think you can draw any linguistic conclusions from it.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 11:50 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 1/2/2018 11:41 AM, nIqolay Q wrote:
Given that the dominant cultural attitude towards corpses among Klingons is "when I'm dead, just throw me in the trash"
This idea has been undermined many times since it was first aired. It also doesn't account for the possibility that the attitude might be a modern, and even local, one. That is, not all Klingons, past and present, necessarily consider a corpse to be an useless, empty shell. I don't think you can draw any linguistic conclusions from it.
I was being glib. I know that not all Klingons would necessarily have the same beliefs as contemporary mainstream Klingons. (Insofar as "contemporary" means anything when talking about a show set in the future.) I got into this argument once with some friends, who complained that the Klingons in DSC cared too much about the bodies of their fallen. The fact that a lot of TNG and DS9 depicted "corpses are empty shells" as the predominant Klingon belief may explain why Okrand never got around to coming up with more vocabulary for funerary practices, though.
Note: Don't continue reading if you don't want SPOILERS on Discovery. Am 02.01.2018 um 17:50 schrieb SuStel:
That is, not all Klingons, past and present, necessarily consider a corpse to be an useless, empty shell.
I just rewatched episode 2 of Discovery, and indeed, T'kuvma explained why they recovered their dead warriors: He explains that when a warrior dies while sleeping, he is just flesh and bones, but a warrior who dies in battle deserves his final honorable treatment. Read the Klingon dialogue in the wiki: http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/DSC102 -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.net
On Jan 2, 2018, at 13:29, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Note: Don't continue reading if you don't want SPOILERS on Discovery.
Am 02.01.2018 um 17:50 schrieb SuStel: That is, not all Klingons, past and present, necessarily consider a corpse to be an useless, empty shell.
I just rewatched episode 2 of Discovery, and indeed, T'kuvma explained why they recovered their dead warriors: He explains that when a warrior dies while sleeping, he is just flesh and bones, but a warrior who dies in battle deserves his final honorable treatment.
Isn’t that inconsistent with the TNG episode “Heart of Glory”, in which the bodies of two Klingons who “died well” (in a battle with the Worf) are referred to as simply empty shells? IIRC (the Wikipedia article doesn’t seem to discuss this) the Enterprise crew are told by the Klingon commander to simply dispose of the bodies by the most efficient means possible. - SapIr
--"Isn’t that inconsistent with the TNG episode “Heart of Glory"..." Again, the rituals around death have already been shown to be inconsistently depicted (see "ak'voh," the practice of guarding a body over night so that the spirit might leave it in peace -- also performed by Worf). So who knows. Also, did you know that the Taj Mahal is flanked by two identical, mirroring mosques that just aren't shown in most pictures? (reference: http://www.blankinship-web.com/sabbatical01/India/Taj_Mahal/taj-1.jpg). I just think that's cool. -- Socialist Alternative <http://www.socialistalternative.org/> Klingon Language Institute <http://www.kli.org/> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:44 PM, <kechpaja@comcast.net> wrote:
On Jan 2, 2018, at 13:29, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Note: Don't continue reading if you don't want SPOILERS on Discovery.
Am 02.01.2018 um 17:50 schrieb SuStel: That is, not all Klingons, past and present, necessarily consider a corpse to be an useless, empty shell.
I just rewatched episode 2 of Discovery, and indeed, T'kuvma explained why they recovered their dead warriors: He explains that when a warrior dies while sleeping, he is just flesh and bones, but a warrior who dies in battle deserves his final honorable treatment.
Isn’t that inconsistent with the TNG episode “Heart of Glory”, in which the bodies of two Klingons who “died well” (in a battle with the Worf) are referred to as simply empty shells? IIRC (the Wikipedia article doesn’t seem to discuss this) the Enterprise crew are told by the Klingon commander to simply dispose of the bodies by the most efficient means possible.
- SapIr _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Also, I figured out one of the puns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himeji_Castle
Ah, lovely! A bit embarrassed I didn't think of that, actiually, as I've been studying (and even tracing) pictures of that castle for drawing practice and some calligraphy stuff :P My first thought was {jem'IH} -> jem + 'IH = "feel pretty", so I wondered if perhaps whoever composed/performed "I Feel Pretty" was named Castle. They weren't. Then I started thinking {jem'IH} -> HI'mej -> HImej -> "Go away!" -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8yjNbcKkNY and I actually thought that was a possibility :P
Also, did you know that the Taj Mahal is flanked by two identical, mirroring mosques that
just aren't shown in most pictures?
I did not, but that is indeed very cool; thanks for sharing! //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of John R. Harness <cartweel@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 19:50 To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Maltz about castles --"Isn't that inconsistent with the TNG episode "Heart of Glory"..." Again, the rituals around death have already been shown to be inconsistently depicted (see "ak'voh," the practice of guarding a body over night so that the spirit might leave it in peace -- also performed by Worf). So who knows. Also, did you know that the Taj Mahal is flanked by two identical, mirroring mosques that just aren't shown in most pictures? (reference: http://www.blankinship-web.com/sabbatical01/India/Taj_Mahal/taj-1.jpg). I just think that's cool. -- Socialist Alternative<http://www.socialistalternative.org/> Klingon Language Institute<http://www.kli.org/> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:44 PM, <kechpaja@comcast.net<mailto:kechpaja@comcast.net>> wrote:
On Jan 2, 2018, at 13:29, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de<mailto:levinius@gmx.de>> wrote:
Note: Don't continue reading if you don't want SPOILERS on Discovery.
Am 02.01.2018 um 17:50 schrieb SuStel: That is, not all Klingons, past and present, necessarily consider a corpse to be an useless, empty shell.
I just rewatched episode 2 of Discovery, and indeed, T'kuvma explained why they recovered their dead warriors: He explains that when a warrior dies while sleeping, he is just flesh and bones, but a warrior who dies in battle deserves his final honorable treatment.
Isn't that inconsistent with the TNG episode "Heart of Glory", in which the bodies of two Klingons who "died well" (in a battle with the Worf) are referred to as simply empty shells? IIRC (the Wikipedia article doesn't seem to discuss this) the Enterprise crew are told by the Klingon commander to simply dispose of the bodies by the most efficient means possible. - SapIr _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org<mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 1:44 PM, <kechpaja@comcast.net> wrote:
Isn’t that inconsistent with the TNG episode “Heart of Glory”, in which the bodies of two Klingons who “died well” (in a battle with the Worf) are referred to as simply empty shells? IIRC (the Wikipedia article doesn’t seem to discuss this) the Enterprise crew are told by the Klingon commander to simply dispose of the bodies by the most efficient means possible.
*qangtlhInmey pIm pablaH tlhInganpu'.* "*lo'laHbe' lommey*" seems to be the dominant belief of Klingons in the TNG-DS9-VOY era, or at least one of the most common beliefs, but that doesn't mean it's universal. Aren't T'kuvma and his followers a minority sect? (Depending on how DSC plays out, perhaps the belief's association with T'kuvma is why modern Klingons have abandoned it...) Also, I figured out one of the puns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himeji_Castle
On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 01:56:58PM -0500, nIqolay Q wrote:
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 1:44 PM, <kechpaja@comcast.net> wrote:
Isn’t that inconsistent with the TNG episode “Heart of Glory”, in which the bodies of two Klingons who “died well” (in a battle with the Worf) are referred to as simply empty shells? IIRC (the Wikipedia article doesn’t seem to discuss this) the Enterprise crew are told by the Klingon commander to simply dispose of the bodies by the most efficient means possible.
*qangtlhInmey pIm pablaH tlhInganpu'.*
teH. 'ach {TNG}Daq tlhIngan qangtlhInmey luDellu'taHvIS DuHvam buSlu'be'.
"*lo'laHbe' lommey*" seems to be the dominant belief of Klingons in the TNG-DS9-VOY era, or at least one of the most common beliefs, but that doesn't mean it's universal.
The Klingons on the battle cruiser seem to act like they assume it's universal, but perhaps that's just because it's dominant enough that Klingons who follow those beliefs tend to forget that there are other options.
Aren't T'kuvma and his followers a minority sect? (Depending on how DSC plays out, perhaps the belief's association with T'kuvma is why modern Klingons have abandoned it...)
True, and that's a good point. Perhaps that will come with an explanation of why DSC Klingons look so different from later Klingons. - SapIr
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 11:41 AM, nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se> wrote:
A grand mausoleum such as the Taj Mahal might perhaps be called «nol DuHmor». Not sure about its defenses, though; perhaps it's more of a «nol qach'a'».
Would {nol} be the right noun here? The focus of a mausoleum is less on the funeral ceremony itself, and more on the fact that the person is interred inside.
I also think that {nol} "funeral" is not appropriate. Felix probably meant {mol} "grave". -- ghunchu'wI'
I also think that {nol} "funeral" is not appropriate. Felix probably meant {mol} "grave".
I don't think «mol» is really the right word either, unless they're actually buried in the ground (or in a wall or the like). In paq'batlh, the phrase «chalqachlIj rachlu'ta'bogh tutDaq mol'egh betleH» is used to mean something like "the bat'leth buried itself in the fortified tower's column". While this may be modtic usage, it suggests to me that the verb «mol» involves an actual, physical burial, and since it is likely cognate with the noun «mol», I would expect the same of it. //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 6:43:38 PM To: Klingon language email discussion forum Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Maltz about castles On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 11:41 AM, nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com<mailto:niqolay0@gmail.com>> wrote: On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se<mailto:felixm@kth.se>> wrote: A grand mausoleum such as the Taj Mahal might perhaps be called «nol DuHmor». Not sure about its defenses, though; perhaps it's more of a «nol qach'a'». ?Would {nol} be the right noun here? The focus of a mausoleum is less on the funeral ceremony itself, and more on the fact that the person is interred inside. I also think that {nol} "funeral" is not appropriate. Felix probably meant {mol} "grave". -- ghunchu'wI'
Would {nol} be the right noun here? The focus of a mausoleum is less on the funeral ceremony itself, and more on the fact that the person is interred inside.
I had similar thoights, but could've sworn we had seen *nol qach* used somewhere. Can't seem to find that, however. «pel'aQ/nebeylI'/nev'aQ DuHmor» makes sense for a mausoleum, then. Or just «lom DuHmor» if they're stores in some other way. Regarding culture, we each have a few thousand (myriad? million?) human cultures, philosophies, teachings and religions that we don't follow, as well as an unlimited number of imaginary ones, but we still find it useful to be able to talk about them :) //loghaD ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 5:41:27 PM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Maltz about castles On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se<mailto:felixm@kth.se>> wrote:
From the description, I take it «jem'IH» could also be translated as "fortress" or "(permanent) military base" (see also: «waw'»), at least if it's a particularly grand one. Fort Knox strikes me as a non-castle that might be called a «jem'IH».
I suppose a mansion that is built both for grandeur and defense might be called a «DuHmorHom», or perhaps just an outright «DuHmor» if it's grand enough. Perhaps to clarify that it serves as a home, you could call it a «juH DuHmor». A grand mausoleum such as the Taj Mahal might perhaps be called «nol DuHmor». Not sure about its defenses, though; perhaps it's more of a «nol qach'a'». ?Would {nol} be the right noun here? The focus of a mausoleum is less on the funeral ceremony itself, and more on the fact that the person is interred inside. Given that the dominant cultural attitude towards corpses among Klingons is "when I'm dead, just throw me in the trash"?, there's not a lot of vocabulary for various ways of keeping bodies around. Something like {nebeylI' DuHmor} "fancy sarcophagus palace" might work better for the Taj Mahal.
FWIW, Qov came up with *{mol yotlh} “graveyard” which she used twice in DSC "The Butcher's Knife Cares Not For the Lamb's Cry": DaH QI DachennISmoH SoH'e', mol yotlhvetlh DajaHnIS 'ej Senjaw choHwI' bobcho' DaSuqnIS. Now it is your turn to build, to go into that graveyard and bring back the Shenzhou's processing unit. 'ejyo' may'mo' chenbogh mol yotlhDaq nuDechbogh Dujmey Deq DIqorta'. We have scavenged the dead vessels floating around us in the graveyard left by our battle with Starfleet. --Voragh From: tlhIngan-Hol [mailto:tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org] On Behalf Of Felix Malmenbeck
Would {nol} be the right noun here? The focus of a mausoleum is less on the funeral ceremony itself, and more on the fact that the person is interred inside.
I had similar thoights, but could've sworn we had seen *nol qach* used somewhere. Can't seem to find that, however. //loghaD ________________________________
Am 02.01.2018 um 15:29 schrieb Felix Malmenbeck:
From the description, I take it «jem'IH» could also be translated as "fortress" or "(permanent) military base"
It's funny that this was what first came to my mind, and Okrand has confirmed it: --------quote MO---------- I'd say it could be used for any kind of permanent (or intended-to-be permanent or long-lasting) fortress that is continually staffed. Not for something built quickly that they intend to abandon once a battle is over. --------quote MO----------
Fort Knox strikes me as a non-castle that might be called a «jem'IH».
Perfect fit, yes. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Maltz
participants (10)
-
Alan Anderson -
Felix Malmenbeck -
John R. Harness -
kechpaja -
kechpaja＠comcast.net
-
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
nIqolay Q -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel