I don't think there's a Ca'Non answer to this, so I'm just asking for personal opinions. Suppose I want to write a passage, where I'm talking about how people who torture animals are human trash. I start by writing {veQ Human}, but as the passage continues, I choose occasionally to write {veQ} only. When writing the plural, should I use {veQpu'} or {veQmey} ? I realize, that perhaps in english you wouldn't pluralize the "trash"; but humor me, because the issue here isn't *this* particular example. The issue here, is "if you needed to pluralize a noun, which refers to people, but that noun wasn't capable of language, would you use {-pu'} or {-mey}" ? ~ m. qunen'oS
Am 16.05.2019 um 11:09 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
I start by writing {veQ Human}, but as the passage continues, I choose occasionally to write {veQ} only.
I would say {Human veQ} parallel to {tlhIngan SuvwI'} or {verengan Ha'DIbaH}
I realize, that perhaps in english you wouldn't pluralize the "trash"; but humor me, because the issue here isn't *this* particular example.
That's actually a good question. I don't know any canon examples for {veQ} confirming this, but I guess it's not countable, such as {bIQ}.
The issue here, is "if you needed to pluralize a noun, which refers to people, but that noun wasn't capable of language, would you use {-pu'} or {-mey}" ?
I would base this on the explanation in KGT, p. 152, with the word {Ho'} which is a slang term for "hero", but means "tooth: // Grammatically, even as slang, {Ho’} follows the rules appropriate to its literal meaning. Thus, even though it may refer to a person, its plural is {Ho’Du’} ("teeth"), making use of the plural suffix for body parts ({-Du’}), not {Ho’pu’}, with {-pu’}, the plural suffix for beings capable of using language. Similarly, it never takes the possessive suffixes associated with beings capable of using language. // -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/ST5
On May 16, 2019, at 06:25, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
The issue here, is "if you needed to pluralize a noun, which refers to people, but that noun wasn't capable of language, would you use {-pu'} or {-mey}" ?
I would base this on the explanation in KGT, p. 152, with the word {Ho'} which is a slang term for "hero", but means "tooth:
Yes, this. But besides this fact, that we seem to follow the normal plural suffix of the word and not what it represents, and the fact that we don’t know whether {veQ} can be pluralized at all, even *if* the “correct”, “normal” answer in this situation would be to use {-pu'}, then using {-mey} could add an additional layer of insult to the situation, assuming they’re not also scattered all about. So obviously, if you’re going to use anything, use {-mey}.
See also {jIb Ho'Du'} "comb" (n) From Talk Now! Klingon. I see in my notes that the meaning of {Ho'} was extended to "cog/sprocket teeth" at qep'a' 2018. Presumably the plural of this is also {Ho'Du'}. -- Voragh -----Original Message----- From: Lieven L. Litaer
The issue here, is "if you needed to pluralize a noun, which refers to people, but that noun wasn't capable of language, would you use {-pu'} or {-mey}" ?
I would base this on the explanation in KGT, p. 152, with the word {Ho'} which is a slang term for "hero", but means "tooth: // Grammatically, even as slang, {Ho’} follows the rules appropriate to its literal meaning. Thus, even though it may refer to a person, its plural is {Ho’Du’} ("teeth"), making use of the plural suffix for body parts ({-Du’}), not {Ho’pu’}, with {-pu’}, the plural suffix for beings capable of using language. Similarly, it never takes the possessive suffixes associated with beings capable of using language. //
On May 16, 2019, at 5:09 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
The issue here, is "if you needed to pluralize a noun, which refers to people, but that noun wasn't capable of language, would you use {-pu'} or {-mey}" ?
I am likely to choose the plural suffix that matches the noun’s usual meaning. What I end up doing in a specific case will depend on exactly why I am using that noun and what I want to imply about the people I am mentioning. -- ghunchu'wI'
ghunchu'wI':
What I end up doing in a specific case will depend on exactly why I am using that noun and what I want to imply about the people I am mentioning.
Could you write an example ? lieven quoting kgt:
//Grammatically, even as slang, {Ho’} follows the rules appropriate to its literal meaning. Thus, even though it may refer to a person, its plural is {Ho’Du’} ("teeth"), making use of the plural suffix for body parts ({-Du’}), not {Ho’pu’}, with {-pu’}, the plural suffix for beings capable of using language. Similarly, it never takes the possessive suffixes associated with beings capable of using language.//
This is wonderful; thank you for reminding me ! But now, lets take this a bit further, and I'm asking everyone here, who would be willing to answer.. A Star Trek script writer, comes to you and says: I want you to translate in klingon, the phrase "kahless, my light". Suppose that the "my light" is used metaphorically; would you use {qeylIS, tamghaywIj} or {qeylIS, tamghaywI'} ? And suppose it's used literally; someone sees kahless being made of light (he's a god after all..). Would you use {qeylIS, tamghaywIj} or {qeylIS, tamghaywI'} ? And of course, the script writer says, that you *have* to use these two words in apposition; i.e. no recasting, no rephrasing, ~ m. qunen'oS
On 5/16/2019 8:54 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
A Star Trek script writer, comes to you and says: I want you to translate in klingon, the phrase "kahless, my light".
Suppose that the "my light" is used metaphorically; would you use {qeylIS, tamghaywIj} or {qeylIS, tamghaywI'} ?
And suppose it's used literally; someone sees kahless being made of light (he's a god after all..). Would you use {qeylIS, tamghaywIj} or {qeylIS, tamghaywI'} ?
And of course, the script writer says, that you*have* to use these two words in apposition; i.e. no recasting, no rephrasing,
I would ask the scriptwriter if they really want my help after all. They seem to have decided on my translation for me. Metaphorically, I'd probably use *tamghaywIj.* Literally, I'd only use *tamghaywI'* if we were actually talking about a being capable of using language that I wanted to refer to as a /light./ I think I'd be very unlikely to do so. Klingons do not have rigid lines of demarcation when it comes to deciding whether a noun counts as a being capable of using language. The plural suffix for birds is usually *-mey,* the general plural suffix, as would be expected. There is a difference of opinion, however, about which plural suffix to use for a few birds capable of mimicking speech, such as the *vIlInHoD* and the *qaryoq* (and the larger *qaryoq'a'*), with some Klingons using *-mey* but others preferring *-pu',* the plural suffix for beings capable of using language. Maltz is a member of the former camp; he said he was never able to engage a *qaryoq* in a conversation that made any sense. /HolQeD/ volume 10 number 4 You're basically picking at an issue you don't really need to. Take your best guess, and if the noun really doesn't obviously fall into one of the genders, nobody'll blame you for your choice. This is an area where "good enough" is all there is. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On May 16, 2019, at 07:54, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Suppose that the "my light" is used metaphorically; would you use {qeylIS, tamghaywIj} or {qeylIS, tamghaywI'} ?
How is this substantially different from {'Iv chaH Ho'Du'lIj'e'}? Surely qeylIS would make it to the top of many a list.
And suppose it's used literally; someone sees kahless being made of light (he's a god after all..). Would you use {qeylIS, tamghaywIj} or {qeylIS, tamghaywI'} ?
Interesting, in this case I’m not certain but I’m tempted to go with {-wI'}: “light capable of language”.
Am 16.05.2019 um 15:23 schrieb Daniel Dadap:
Interesting, in this case I’m not certain but I’m tempted to go with {-wI'}: “light capable of language”.
Well, thinking more philosophically, if I say that "Kahless is my light" you're not saying that that light you talk about is capable of language. Kahless is, but the light which he represents is not. It's still just "light". -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Kahless
On May 16, 2019, at 08:27, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 16.05.2019 um 15:23 schrieb Daniel Dadap: Interesting, in this case I’m not certain but I’m tempted to go with {-wI'}: “light capable of language”.
Well, thinking more philosophically, if I say that "Kahless is my light" you're not saying that that light you talk about is capable of language. Kahless is, but the light which he represents is not. It's still just "light".
That comment was specifically referring to the literal case where {tamghay yuch qeylIS}. qeylIS doesn’t *represent* light in that case; he *is* light. For the other, metaphorical, case which mayqel brought up I see no reason not to use {-wIj}.
On Thu, 16 May 2019 at 06:27, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 16.05.2019 um 15:23 schrieb Daniel Dadap:
Interesting, in this case I’m not certain but I’m tempted to go with {-wI'}: “light capable of language”.
Well, thinking more philosophically, if I say that "Kahless is my light" you're not saying that that light you talk about is capable of language. Kahless is, but the light which he represents is not. It's still just "light".
chay' pIm {Ho'wI' ghaH qeylIS'e'}, {tamghaywI' ghaH qeylIS'e'}? maQochbe' HughwI' jIH je. -- De'vID
Am 16.05.2019 um 15:41 schrieb De'vID:
chay' pIm {Ho'wI' ghaH qeylIS'e'}, {tamghaywI' ghaH qeylIS'e'}?
pImbe', muj Hoch. {Ho'wI'} lo'nISbe' vay', {Ho'wIj} lo'nIS. 'ej {tamghaywI'} lo'nISbe'lu' je. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery
On May 16, 2019, at 08:41, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
chay' pIm {Ho'wI' ghaH qeylIS'e'}, {tamghaywI' ghaH qeylIS'e'}?
pImbe'law' 'a {Ho'wIj} jatlhnIslu'law':
Similarly, it never takes the possessive suffixes associated with beings capable of using language.
SorHa'lu'taHvIS, mItlaw' {-wIj}. Sorlu'taHvIS 'ej tamghay ghaHbejtaHvIS qeylIS, chaq mItlaH {-wI'}, 'a jIbejbejbe'.
maQochbe' HughwI' jIH je.
loQ maQochlaw' maqoch.
nuqDaq qeylIS Dapol?
reH tIqDu'wIjDaq vIpoltaH.
Am 16.05.2019 um 14:54 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
A Star Trek script writer, comes to you and says: I want you to translate in klingon, the phrase "kahless, my light".
Suppose that the "my light" is used metaphorically; would you use {qeylIS, tamghaywIj} or {qeylIS, tamghaywI'} ?
That's certainly {tamghaywIj}. But now, if you really want to go a step further, consider a story of a planet of people who are called "the lights". So instead of calling the the ferengie, or the terrans, these are called "the lights." So these creatures would certainly say {tamghaypu' maH!} and if a tamghay lady talks to her tamghay husband, she would say {tamghaywI' SoH}. But that's really very theoretical and a very special case. In the normal situation (unless there's a known exception) the nouns usually take their standard suffixes. Here's some strange examples: {raSmey chaH jupwI'pu''e'} "My friends are tables" (tables are still things) {leghmeH tlhapragh nachDajDaq cha' naghmey tu'lu'.} "The monster has two stones in his head to see." (even though it's a body part of that monster) {yuQvetlhDaq jatlhbogh Sormey vIlegh.} "I saw speaking trees on that planet." (even though they are able to speak) {chay' qamDu' ghaj raS} "the table has two feet" (even though theyare not really body parts, the orignal word is so) So it's not only the question if the thing is able to speak, it's more the question whether it /usually/ speaks. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/CapableOfLanguage
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 8:54 AM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
ghunchu'wI':
What I end up doing in a specific case will depend...
Could you write an example ?
Any example would be contrived and won't explain my feelings any further.
And suppose it's used literally; someone sees kahless being made of light (he's a god after all..).
Qun ghaHbe'chu'. tlhIngan SuvwI''a' quvqu' ghaH.
Would you use {qeylIS, tamghaywIj} or {qeylIS, tamghaywI'} ?
tamghay ghaHbe' je qeylIS. chaq tamghay tlhuD. chaq qeylIS Dech tamghay. chaq ghaH cha'. tamghay qeylIS vIleghchugh, ghaytan jollu'lI' 'e' vIchov.
And of course, the script writer says, that you *have* to use these two words in apposition; i.e. no recasting, no rephrasing,
That's cheating. As someone who actually has found myself in that sort of situation, I can assure you that the script writer has no such power. 'utqu'chugh, jIjatlh «qeylIS tamghay!» -- ghunchu'wI'
ghItlhpu' mayqel:
A Star Trek script writer, comes to you and says: I want you to translate in klingon, the phrase "kahless, my light". Suppose that the "my light" is used metaphorically; would you use {qeylIS, tamghaywIj} or {qeylIS, tamghaywI'} ?
Others have given good canon-based answers that basically show the most common practice among Klingons is to use the suffixes grammatically appropriate to the literal meaning of the noun - so, tamghaywIj - but that context or individual preference may play a part. Personally, a priori I'd prefer tamghaywIj. With that said, context might send me in the other direction if necessary. For instance, in my translation of Shota Rustaveli's The Man in the Panther Skin, for instance, I've run up against this problem hard. In Rustaveli's original poem, formulaic metaphors are extremely common, but often obtuse to the point of incomprehensibility: Georgian sada indoni brol-vardsa / sarven gišrisa sarita literally means "where the Indians surround the crystal and rose with arbour of jet", but it's actually a complex metaphor for the beauty of Avtandil's beloved Tinatin. Because this happens so very often in the text, I decided to break with the more common practice and help the reader out by occasionally making use of prescriptively "incorrect" affixes as a device to signal some of these metaphors overtly. lomo "o (my) lion!" (referring to Avtandil) I rendered in one place as 'o 'IwwI' "o my blood!", and in another place I rendered "narcissuses" (referring to Tinatin's eyes) as SeparDu'Daj "her separ-stones". However, this practice was a contextual decision made for this specific text and for very specific reasons. I wouldn't counsel a learner to do so as a matter of course. QeS 'utlh
The thing to keep in mind is that in Klingon, the {wIj/wI’} and {pu’/Du’/mey} determination is like linguistic gender. It’s not a literal comment as to whether a specific entity is a body part or capable of language. It is arbitrary and usually fits the general guideline of body part/language capable/other. That doesn’t mean every noun always lives up to the guideline. If you have a noun and you don’t know its typical gender, use the guideline, but if you have a noun with an established gender, like De’wI’mey, which Okrand has given us, you don’t abandon the known gender because of a specific instance. It doesn’t matter if a specific entity is assigned to a noun that doesn’t fit the guideline, that noun keeps the known gender. Someone who dearly loves their pair of parrots may use {-pu’}, but everyone, including the speaker knows that it’s grammatically wrong. Sent from my iPhone. charghwI’
On May 17, 2019, at 2:18 AM, Rhona Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com> wrote:
ghItlhpu' mayqel:
A Star Trek script writer, comes to you and says: I want you to translate in klingon, the phrase "kahless, my light". Suppose that the "my light" is used metaphorically; would you use {qeylIS, tamghaywIj} or {qeylIS, tamghaywI'} ?
Others have given good canon-based answers that basically show the most common practice among Klingons is to use the suffixes grammatically appropriate to the literal meaning of the noun - so, tamghaywIj - but that context or individual preference may play a part. Personally, a priori I'd prefer tamghaywIj.
With that said, context might send me in the other direction if necessary. For instance, in my translation of Shota Rustaveli's The Man in the Panther Skin, for instance, I've run up against this problem hard. In Rustaveli's original poem, formulaic metaphors are extremely common, but often obtuse to the point of incomprehensibility: Georgian sada indoni brol-vardsa / sarven gišrisa sarita literally means "where the Indians surround the crystal and rose with arbour of jet", but it's actually a complex metaphor for the beauty of Avtandil's beloved Tinatin. Because this happens so very often in the text, I decided to break with the more common practice and help the reader out by occasionally making use of prescriptively "incorrect" affixes as a device to signal some of these metaphors overtly. lomo "o (my) lion!" (referring to Avtandil) I rendered in one place as 'o 'IwwI' "o my blood!", and in another place I rendered "narcissuses" (referring to Tinatin's eyes) as SeparDu'Daj "her separ-stones". However, this practice was a contextual decision made for this specific text and for very specific reasons. I wouldn't counsel a learner to do so as a matter of course.
QeS 'utlh _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 6:33 PM Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
Someone who dearly loves their pair of parrots may use {-pu’}, but everyone, including the speaker knows that it’s grammatically wrong. <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org>
Parrots may not have been the best example. The plural suffix for birds is usually {-mey}, the general plural suffix,
as would be expected. There is a difference of opinion, however, about which plural suffix to use for a few birds capable of mimicking speech, such as the {vIlInHoD} and the {qaryoq} (and the larger {qaryoq'a'}), with some Klingons using {-mey} but others preferring {-pu'}, the plural suffix for beings capable of using language. Maltz is a member of the former camp; he said he was never able to engage a {qaryoq} in a conversation that made any sense.
http://klingonska.org/canon/2001-12-holqed-10-4.txt While the examples here are for Klingon birds, I suspect that a {tera' vIlInHoD} would end up having whichever plural suffix the speaker preferred for talking birds.
jatlhpu' charghwI':
Someone who dearly loves their pair of parrots may use {-pu’}, but everyone, including the speaker knows that it’s grammatically wrong.
I'm on my phone and so will address the rest of what you say when I can get onto a more practical keyboard, but this one point isn't canonically supported. What Okrand says is nothing more than that there's a split in usage on such terms, and that it's grammatically wrong for Maltz's idiolect. I quote: "The plural suffix for birds is usually {-mey}, the general plural suffix, as would be expected. There is a difference of opinion, however, about which plural suffix to use for a few birds capable of mimicking speech, such as the {vIlInHoD} and the {qaryoq} (and the larger {qaryoq'a'}), with some Klingons using {-mey} but others preferring {-pu'}, the plural suffix for beings capable of using language. Maltz is a member of the former camp; he said he was never able to engage a {qaryoq} in a conversation that made any sense." (HQ 10:4, p5) Nowhere is it said that {-pu'} is considered ungrammatical within the lects of those who do use it for such birds. QeS 'utlh ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> Sent: Sunday, 19 May 2019 8:33:08 AM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] veQpu' or veQmey ? The thing to keep in mind is that in Klingon, the {wIj/wI’} and {pu’/Du’/mey} determination is like linguistic gender. It’s not a literal comment as to whether a specific entity is a body part or capable of language. It is arbitrary and usually fits the general guideline of body part/language capable/other. That doesn’t mean every noun always lives up to the guideline. If you have a noun and you don’t know its typical gender, use the guideline, but if you have a noun with an established gender, like De’wI’mey, which Okrand has given us, you don’t abandon the known gender because of a specific instance. It doesn’t matter if a specific entity is assigned to a noun that doesn’t fit the guideline, that noun keeps the known gender. Someone who dearly loves their pair of parrots may use {-pu’}, but everyone, including the speaker knows that it’s grammatically wrong. Sent from my iPhone. charghwI’ On May 17, 2019, at 2:18 AM, Rhona Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com<mailto:qeslagh@hotmail.com>> wrote: ghItlhpu' mayqel:
A Star Trek script writer, comes to you and says: I want you to translate in klingon, the phrase "kahless, my light". Suppose that the "my light" is used metaphorically; would you use {qeylIS, tamghaywIj} or {qeylIS, tamghaywI'} ?
Others have given good canon-based answers that basically show the most common practice among Klingons is to use the suffixes grammatically appropriate to the literal meaning of the noun - so, tamghaywIj - but that context or individual preference may play a part. Personally, a priori I'd prefer tamghaywIj. With that said, context might send me in the other direction if necessary. For instance, in my translation of Shota Rustaveli's The Man in the Panther Skin, for instance, I've run up against this problem hard. In Rustaveli's original poem, formulaic metaphors are extremely common, but often obtuse to the point of incomprehensibility: Georgian sada indoni brol-vardsa / sarven gišrisa sarita literally means "where the Indians surround the crystal and rose with arbour of jet", but it's actually a complex metaphor for the beauty of Avtandil's beloved Tinatin. Because this happens so very often in the text, I decided to break with the more common practice and help the reader out by occasionally making use of prescriptively "incorrect" affixes as a device to signal some of these metaphors overtly. lomo "o (my) lion!" (referring to Avtandil) I rendered in one place as 'o 'IwwI' "o my blood!", and in another place I rendered "narcissuses" (referring to Tinatin's eyes) as SeparDu'Daj "her separ-stones". However, this practice was a contextual decision made for this specific text and for very specific reasons. I wouldn't counsel a learner to do so as a matter of course. QeS 'utlh _______________________________________________ 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 Sun, May 19, 2019, 08:53 Rhona Fenwick, <qeslagh@hotmail.com> wrote:
jatlhpu' charghwI':
Someone who dearly loves their pair of parrots may use {-pu’}, but everyone, including the speaker knows that it’s grammatically wrong.
I'm on my phone and so will address the rest of what you say when I can get onto a more practical keyboard,
wej nItlh 'echlet QaQDaq pawlaw' QeS 'utlh. jIloStaH. -- De'vID
participants (10)
-
Alan Anderson -
Daniel Dadap -
De'vID -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
Rhona Fenwick -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin