New Words from DIS 2889
Hello, all! As some of you may have noticed, this month's edition of 'eSrIv contains a number of new words used to translate DIS 2889 (In the Year 2889) by Jules Verne.
From Dr. Okrand:
"Mars and Jupiter have two names, as do other planets in our solar system. There's the "scientific" name and the nickname that the Klingons learned after encountering and engaging with Terrans. In talking with Terrans, or in Terran-y contexts, the nicknames are more common. With the nickname first: "Mars" - {marIS} {Sol loS} "Jupiter" - {ju'pIter} {Sol vagh} "waterfall" is {bIQ notron} {notron} is "curtain, drape," but it can also be used for things like a door or gate that opens and closes vertically, like a portcullis. ---- Niagara {nayeghra} Paris {parIy} Boston {baStan} Philadelphia {vIlaDelvIya'} Washington, DC {wa'SIngtanDIySIy} (I don't know how this works in what you're translating, but in normal, day-to-day Klingon conversation, the {DIySIy} is never left off. Let me know if anybody refers to the District of Columbia or to "DC" by itself, without the "Washington" part.) Bosporus {boSporoS} For tens of millions, you have a choice. 30,000,000 could be {wejmaH'uy'}, as you suggest, or it could be {wejvatlhbIp}. Either is fine, and the choice would probably be determined by what other (big) numbers were being mentioned in the same context. If no other numbers are around, flip a coin." Additionally, when I asked him what the most appropriate way of saying "read aloud" (e.g. a book), he said that *paq mu'(mey) jatlh* would work fine. Maltz, we thank you!! To read the story, check out 'eSrIv jav on Hol 'ampaS: https://hol.kag.org/page/eSrIv.html More on DIS 2889: http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/InTheYear2889 --DeSDu'
On Jan 28, 2020, at 16:47, Jackson Bradley <j.monroe.bradley@gmail.com> wrote:
As some of you may have noticed, this month's edition of 'eSrIv contains a number of new words
Dunqu'! jISeyqu'!
"Mars and Jupiter have two names, as do other planets in our solar system. There's the "scientific" name and the nickname that the Klingons learned after encountering and engaging with Terrans. In talking with Terrans, or in Terran-y contexts, the nicknames are more common.
With the nickname first:
"Mars" - {marIS} {Sol loS}
"Jupiter" - {ju'pIter} {Sol vagh}
I imagine this can be extrapolated to the other planets, and that our local star is called {Sol} in Klingon.
For tens of millions, you have a choice. 30,000,000 could be {wejmaH'uy'}, as you suggest, or it could be {wejvatlhbIp}. Either is fine, and the choice would probably be determined by what other (big) numbers were being mentioned in the same context. If no other numbers are around, flip a coin."
This is very useful indeed. What about {wejSaDnetlh}? Does the smaller number suffix always go first? e.g. is {wej'uy'maH} wrong? Is it possible to use the same number suffix twice, e.g. {wejnetlhnetlh} for 300,000,000? Or {wejSaghanSaghan} for 3,000,000,000,000,000,000? Is it wrong to combine number suffixes to express a unit that already has a dedicated number suffix? e.g. {wejmaHSaD} instead of {wejnetlh}?
DeSDu':
Additionally, when I asked him what the most appropriate way of saying "read aloud" (e.g. a book), he said that paq mu'(mey) jatlh would work fine.
It's always great to receive new info from maltz.. Unfortunately though, I'm afraid that this piece of Ca'Non, solves one problem (the problem of "how to say.."), by creating another. If we talk on the phone, and I say to you {DaH paq mu'mey vIjatlh}, then according to the newly revealed Ca'Non, the *only* way this is understood is, that I'm holding the book reading from the inside. But what if I'm not actually reading from the inside, but I've memorized the passage in question ? Now, I know what will happen.. Someone will say: "you can't actually be remembering the exact words of a book". But, as americans say, "speak for yourself". I've taken exams, where because my life depended on the outcome, I had memorized the exact words, down to the letter. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
Am 29.01.2020 um 11:30 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
If we talk on the phone, and I say to you {DaH paq mu'mey vIjatlh}, then according to the newly revealed Ca'Non, the *only* way this is understood is, that I'm holding the book reading from the inside.
You cannot always reverse such info. It never sai that it ONLY means reading from a book. I see this more literally: In English, I may say "I now speak the words from the book". Do you know if I have the book, or know from my mind? I think the same happens in Klingon. The phrase does not include the reading, and it does not exclude reciting by heart.
But what if I'm not actually reading from the inside, but I've memorized the passage in question ?
That is a good question, and I know that it's already on Maltz' desk. We just need to be patient a little. Maltz is traveling a lot. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/InTheYear2889
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 11:31, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
DeSDu':
Additionally, when I asked him what the most appropriate way of saying "read aloud" (e.g. a book), he said that paq mu'(mey) jatlh would work fine.
It's always great to receive new info from maltz..
Unfortunately though, I'm afraid that this piece of Ca'Non, solves one problem (the problem of "how to say.."), by creating another.
If we talk on the phone, and I say to you {DaH paq mu'mey vIjatlh}, then according to the newly revealed Ca'Non, the *only* way this is understood is, that I'm holding the book reading from the inside.
qatlh qechvam DaHar? paq mu'mey vIjatlhtaHvIS, paq vIleghnISbe'. SoQ rur. chaq nav vIleghtaHvIS SoQ vIjatlh, chaq qaw vIlo'taHvIS SoQ vIjatlh. -- De'vID
You have a good question for which we don’t have a perfect, authoritative answer. Likely, as others have suggested, you could still say {paq mu’ vIjatlh}, since you are saying the books words, whether reading them or speaking from memory, or if you prefer, you could be more explicit and say, {paq mu’ vIqawchu’} and then quote verbatim. It’s reasonable to think that Klingon speakers should understand that. The thing that Maltz seemed to be revealing is that instead of, as in English, saying “I am reading to you from a book,” or “I am reading a book to you,” which implies, but does not explicitly state that I am making sounds from my mouth while reading in order to share the contents of the book with you, a Klingon makes the more obvious and clear statement that I am speaking the book’s words. It’s another example of Okrand’s inventive capacity to see an activity from an alien perspective, instead of just using the same phrasing we’d use in English. It makes sense in English. We just never say it that way. It would sound alien to say it that way. Wow. Klingons are aliens. No wonder they say it that way. Cool. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jan 29, 2020, at 5:30 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
DeSDu':
Additionally, when I asked him what the most appropriate way of saying "read aloud" (e.g. a book), he said that paq mu'(mey) jatlh would work fine.
It's always great to receive new info from maltz..
Unfortunately though, I'm afraid that this piece of Ca'Non, solves one problem (the problem of "how to say.."), by creating another.
If we talk on the phone, and I say to you {DaH paq mu'mey vIjatlh}, then according to the newly revealed Ca'Non, the *only* way this is understood is, that I'm holding the book reading from the inside.
But what if I'm not actually reading from the inside, but I've memorized the passage in question ?
Now, I know what will happen..
Someone will say: "you can't actually be remembering the exact words of a book".
But, as americans say, "speak for yourself".
I've taken exams, where because my life depended on the outcome, I had memorized the exact words, down to the letter.
~ mayqel qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 1/29/2020 9:00 AM, Will Martin wrote:
The thing that Maltz seemed to be revealing is that instead of, as in English, saying “I am reading to you from a book,” or “I am reading a book to you,” which implies, but does not explicitly state that I am making sounds from my mouth while reading in order to share the contents of the book with you, a Klingon makes the more obvious and clear statement that I am speaking the book’s words. It’s another example of Okrand’s inventive capacity to see an activity from an alien perspective, instead of just using the same phrasing we’d use in English.
It makes sense in English. We just never say it that way. It would sound alien to say it that way.
Wow. Klingons are aliens. No wonder they say it that way.
I don't see this as any kind of consequence of Klingons being alien. I see this as a consequence for there being no adverbial /aloud/ in Klingon. (What Okrand replied to was the phrase /read aloud,/ which DOES explicitly state that you are making sounds from your mouth while reading, but DOESN'T say anything about sharing the content of those words with someone else, and neither does his Klingon rendition.) What does /read aloud/ mean? It means to speak written words. It's not particularly alien that a Klingon way of saying this is /say book words./ This isn't any more obvious or clear than the English /read aloud./ This is just a different language using a different set of words to refer to the same concept. Every language does this, not just those of extraterrestrials. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 29.01.2020 um 02:51 schrieb Hugh Son puqloD:
"Mars and Jupiter have two names, as do other planets in our solar system. [...] I imagine this can be extrapolated to the other planets, and that our local star is called {Sol} in Klingon.
I also see it that way. And based on the canon {telun Hovtay'} I'm sure we live in the {Sol Hovtay'}. And the scientific term for Earth is *Sol wej*. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/Word/SolHovtay-
jIH:
If we talk on the phone, and I say to you {DaH paq mu'mey vIjatlh}, then according to the newly revealed Ca'Non, the *only* way this is understood is, that I'm holding the book reading from the inside. lieven: You cannot always reverse such info. It never sai that it ONLY means reading from a book.
I'm afraid this confuses me.. Aren't we supposed to worship without question the words of maltz, kneeling in cult-like reverence before them, with nothing but the purest and unflinching loyalty ? Aren't they the holiest of holies, not to be defied, falsified, or willingly strayed from ? If we read {Suvchu'pu' SuvwI'}, then wouldn't we be forced to *only* understand that the "warrior fought to the death" ? Or could it mean too that, "the warrior fought perfectly, but without finally having dying in combat" ? ~ mayqel qunen'oS
Am 29.01.2020 um 12:47 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
Aren't we supposed to worship without question the words of maltz, kneeling in cult-like reverence before them, with nothing but the purest and unflinching loyalty ? Aren't they the holiest of holies, not to be defied, falsified, or willingly strayed from ?
Partially true. But look at the order of events: Jack asked: "[...]what the most appropriate way of saying "read aloud" is." Maltz answered: "[...] that paq mu'(mey) jatlh would work fine. First, this is not a special expression, no slang, no idiom, just standard words. You could have made it up yourself, following known grammar. When Okrand writes "could work fine" sounds like "yeah, okay. There's many ways, and this is away to do it." He did not explicitely say like "This is always expressed with xy" or "there is a special phrase" etc. The next thing is another question:
If we read {Suvchu'pu' SuvwI'}, then wouldn't we be forced to *only* understand that the "warrior fought to the death" ? Or could it mean too that, "the warrior fought perfectly, but without finally having dying in combat" ?
I would answer generally that you should always focus on the Klingon words, not the English translations. That counts for every language, btw. In this case, as opposed to the reading thing, the message is very clear (KGT 49:) <<<< [...] when used with some verbs of fighting, implies that the fight results in death. From the Klingon point of view, {Suvchu'} ("fight perfectly") is "fight to the death." A similar construction is used for dueling ({Hay'chu',} "duel to the death"). >>>> This is very clear with no doubt. But that's a cultural thing. That's why it also says "From the Klingon point of view". We all know that Klingons enjoy fighting, and when a Klingon fights in a perfect way, he does until he dies, he won't take a break or run away. A kamikaze fighter also dies in battle, but a Klingon would see no honor in fighting in a suicide mission, so that would not be called {Suvchu'} by a Klingon, but still by the kamikaze fighters. Now, from a Terran point of view, a team of football players can certainly {Suvchu'} in their match if they play in a way that they win the game. They won't die in that game, just just "fight" in a perfect way. [setting aside the discussion if football players really fight, but it may work in a karate competition; you get the point] So, briefly {Suvchu'} is "to the death" for a Klingon, but literally only means "fight perfectly". Reading aloud uses the verb {jatlh}, but you can certainly {jatlh} words from a book without holding it. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/Word/Chu-
On 1/29/2020 6:47 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
jIH:
If we talk on the phone, and I say to you {DaH paq mu'mey vIjatlh}, then according to the newly revealed Ca'Non, the*only* way this is understood is, that I'm holding the book reading from the inside. lieven: You cannot always reverse such info. It never sai that it ONLY means reading from a book. I'm afraid this confuses me..
Aren't we supposed to worship without question the words of maltz, kneeling in cult-like reverence before them, with nothing but the purest and unflinching loyalty ? Aren't they the holiest of holies, not to be defied, falsified, or willingly strayed from ?
No! Certainly not! Question everything. Test everything. We have a concept of "canon," which is simply the body of information Okrand has given us about Klingon. It is the only source of information on Klingon that is considered valid. What is NOT canon is our interpretation of that body of information. We must constantly examine our understanding of canon.
If we read {Suvchu'pu' SuvwI'}, then wouldn't we be forced to*only* understand that the "warrior fought to the death" ? Or could it mean too that, "the warrior fought perfectly, but without finally having dying in combat" ?
We are told that *Suvchu'* means /fight to the death,/ so wherever we see that word we should interpret it that way. (I disagree with Lieven that *Suvchu'* means /fight to the death/ when it refers to what Klingons think but just /fight perfectly/ when it refers to what Terrans footballers might think. This is the language of the Klingons, with their cultural attitudes built in, so when we get a remark like "from the Klingon point of view," it should be taken as an explanation of why the phrase means what it means, not as a suggestion to deviate when dealing with another culture. If Terran footballers were to say *Suvchu'* to refer to their games, I imagine any Klingon listening would interpret this as hyperbole or be thinking, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.") We are not told that the only way to say /read aloud/ is with the phrase *paq mu'mey jatlh,* or that the only think *paq mu'mey jatlh* means is /read aloud./ What we are told is that a good way to translate /read aloud (e.g. from a book)/ is with *paq mu'mey jatlh.* Do not take that beyond what it actually says. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 29.01.2020 um 15:44 schrieb SuStel:
We are told that *Suvchu'* means /fight to the death,/ so wherever we see that word we should interpret it that way. (I disagree with Lieven
Of course you do.
that *Suvchu'* means /fight to the death/ when it refers to what Klingons think but just /fight perfectly/ when it refers to what Terrans footballers might think.
But that's what KGT says, and there's a reason for it to say it. I quote again, in case you over-read it: "From the Klingon point of view, {Suvchu'} ("fight perfectly") is "fight to the death." (KGT, p. 49)
This is the language of the Klingons,
This moves back to the arguing of "Klingons would not say that", so I'd prefer to stay out of this kind of discussion. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/Word/Suv
On 1/29/2020 9:59 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 29.01.2020 um 15:44 schrieb SuStel:
We are told that *Suvchu'* means /fight to the death,/ so wherever we see that word we should interpret it that way. (I disagree with Lieven
Of course you do.
This sort of response is unnecessary, unhelpful, and deliberately provocative.
that *Suvchu'* means /fight to the death/ when it refers to what Klingons think but just /fight perfectly/ when it refers to what Terrans footballers might think.
But that's what KGT says, and there's a reason for it to say it. I quote again, in case you over-read it:
"From the Klingon point of view, {Suvchu'} ("fight perfectly") is "fight to the death." (KGT, p. 49)
Yes, it's from the Klingon point of view. And I explained my thinking: this phrase means that the Klingon language reflects the Klingon point of view, not that the meaning changes depending on the point of view of who says it or whom it's about. Now, it's perfectly fine if you want to disagree with me on that. But I did not "over-read" it.
This is the language of the Klingons,
This moves back to the arguing of "Klingons would not say that", so I'd prefer to stay out of this kind of discussion.
You are incorrect. I'm not concluding anything what Klingons would or would not say. KGT is saying what a phrase means, and it points to Klingon culture as the source of that meaning. That's all. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
And to be clear, I specifically asked about how to say *read a book aloud*. I imagine that one can also say things like *De' chu' ghItlh mu'(mey) jatlh*, *ghuQ mu'(mey) jatlh*, etc. Le mer. 29 janv. 2020, à 09 h 10, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> a écrit :
On 1/29/2020 9:59 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 29.01.2020 um 15:44 schrieb SuStel:
We are told that *Suvchu'* means /fight to the death,/ so wherever we see that word we should interpret it that way. (I disagree with Lieven
Of course you do.
This sort of response is unnecessary, unhelpful, and deliberately provocative.
that *Suvchu'* means */fight to the death/* when it refers to what Klingons think but just */fight perfectly/* when it refers to what Terrans footballers might think.
But that's what KGT says, and there's a reason for it to say it. I quote again, in case you over-read it:
"From the Klingon point of view, {Suvchu'} ("fight perfectly") is "fight to the death." (KGT, p. 49)
Yes, it's from the Klingon point of view. And I explained my thinking: this phrase means that the Klingon language reflects the Klingon point of view, not that the meaning changes depending on the point of view of who says it or whom it's about.
Now, it's perfectly fine if you want to disagree with me on that. But I did not "over-read" it.
This is the language of the Klingons,
This moves back to the arguing of "Klingons would not say that", so I'd prefer to stay out of this kind of discussion.
You are incorrect. I'm not concluding anything what Klingons would or would not say. KGT is saying what a phrase means, and it points to Klingon culture as the source of that meaning. That's all.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Am 29.01.2020 um 16:10 schrieb SuStel:
This sort of response is unnecessary, unhelpful, and deliberately provocative.
Sure, that was my intention.
Now, it's perfectly fine if you want to disagree with me on that.
Good.
You are incorrect.
Of course. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/DavidTrimboliIsAlwaysCorrect
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 5:46 PM Jackson Bradley <j.monroe.bradley@gmail.com> wrote:
"Mars and Jupiter have two names, as do other planets in our solar system. There's the "scientific" name and the nickname that the Klingons learned after encountering and engaging with Terrans. In talking with Terrans, or in Terran-y contexts, the nicknames are more common.
With the nickname first:
"Mars" - {marIS} {Sol loS}
Interesting! Most syllables with a CVCC pattern are transliterated as CV'CIC: {Do'rIn} "(Michael) Dorn" {wo'rIv} "Worf" {wa'lIS} "(Gwynyth) Walsh" {(ro)be'rIt} "(Ro)bert (O'Reilly)" Presumably, the glottal stop is there to move the stress to the previous syllable, so that the {I} sound separating the consonant cluster will be minimized. In this case, there's no glottal stop, so the stress would be expected to be on the "consonant cluster" syllable.
{notron} is "curtain, drape," but it can also be used for things like a door or gate that opens and closes vertically, like a portcullis.
{loScha'}: A main character in Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot novel "Curtain" is named Stephen Norton. (Apparently, Hodgkin's Law of Parallel Planetary Development has been reading a lot of Agatha Christie lately: see {poymar}.)
participants (8)
-
De'vID -
Hugh Son puqloD -
Jackson Bradley -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
SuStel -
Will Martin