tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 20 19:59:47 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Klinpack. *warning* big message
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: Klinpack. *warning* big message
- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 18:14:36 -0400
- In-Reply-To: Heidi Wessman's message of Tue, 19 Jul 1994 18:22:34 -0600 (MDT) <[email protected]>
>From: Heidi Wessman <[email protected]>
>Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 18:22:34 -0600 (MDT)
>For all you wonderful people who are interested in seeing my meager
>Klinpack, here it is. I've already mailed it to some of you, but others
>may be interested. I know there are mistakes in there, so please send me
>any pertinent corrections. As soon as I get this monster quick and fit,
>I'll create an answer sheet to go with it.
Hey. Sorry if this is a repeat of other messages, but it is sorta my job
to correct stuff on this place...`
Please don't take offense, but we all have an obligation to see that
Klingon is taught as correctly as possible.
>Okrand, Marc, _THE_KLINGON_DICTIONARY_, Pocket Books, New York
>copyright 1985, Addendum copyright 1990
Aw, give 'em the ISBN... And the KLI's address, if you feel comfortable
with it.
>***********
>WORKSHEET 1
>vumnav wa'
Um... so evidence of "vum" as a noun; you're compounding verbs with nouns
again, and Okrand never said we could do that. Maybe "qeqna"? "practice
sheet" That's noun-noun, so okay.
>BASICS: sounds, beginning vocabulary.
>b - same as English, only with a slight m sound to it, as in the
>word imbalance without the initial i sound.
Not necessarily. We know that some Klingons pronounce it this way, not
that it's the standard pronunciation. So far as Okrand told us, it's just "b".
>D - harsher, as in the insult Duh! Sometimes pronounced with a
>slight n sound, similar to the word sound.
Not accurate. As above, the "n" is not indicated in the standard
pronunciation, and also the mouth-placement is wrong. Per the description
and the souns on the tapes, D is a retroflex D, as in Indian languages
(that's Indian as in India). That means the tip of the tingue touches the
middle of the mouth; the very highest point on the roof of the mouth. It
tends to sound a little "g"-ish.
>ew - similar to the word Hey-o!
Not the way I say "Hey-o". An Esperanto teaching guide tries to teach this
sound (which occurs in Esperanto) by the example of "wayward". Not bad,
but that's really "eyw". It really doesn't exist in standard English,
though I've heard idiolects where they pronounce things like "so" with that
sound. Basically, it's "e" as in bed that slides into a "w" like in "was".
>gh - this is not like anything in English. The closest approximation
>is the word gobble, but is harsher, and pronounced in the back
>of the throat. Choke a bit for this one.
It's not a matter of harshness, it's a matter of being a fricative. Voiced
air comes out of your throat here, while "g" is a stop. It's the Klingon
"H" with voicing. A really close sound is the gargled "r" in French. So
ask a Frenchman to say "Rachel" and you're getting there.
>H - Another not like English. This is more like the german ch, as
>in the word Bach, or in the Yiddish word l'chaim. It is a harsh
>sound.
Yeah. Depending on the student's dialect of German, it might be harsher
than they think. Incidentally, l'chaim is Hebrew, not Yiddish.
>Iw - As in French bleu.
Not really. Listen to the tapes again. It's Klingon "I" followed by "w".
Sort of like the sound in the middle of "Gee whiz!" only with an "I"
instead of the longer "ee" sound, and voiced "w" (if your idiolect devoices
it) . Best approximation I can think of is "Eeewww!" in disgust (see the
pun in "'Iw" now?)
>Iy - As in English key.
That's the best description we have... I suppose one could try to be clever
and pronounce "I"+"y", but that'd tough.
>m - like in English mud, but sometimes pronounced with
>a slight b sound.
This is never told to us in TKD or anywhere else that I know of. I know
that some Klingon dialects pronounce "b" as "mb", but where do you get that
"m" is pronounced that way?
>n - like in English nerd, sometimes pronounce with a slight d sound.
No evidence for this either. And Klingons don't pronounce "D" as "nd" or
"n"; they might pronounce it like a retroflex "n" (i.e. an "n" pronounced
where "D" is), but not like "n".
>o - as in English mosaic
Here as elsewhere, you may want to stress that vowels don't change their
sounds like they do in English. So "not" in Klingon doesn't sound like
English "not", which in Klingon would be written "nat".
>q - like the English k in kumquat, but pronounced more
>in the back of the throat. Never pronounced like the
>English qu.
Try to get them to pronounce it properly, with the back of the mouth
actually reaching up to touch the uvula. Really sounds like a cough or
choke. Compare where the "k" sound is made in "keel", "care", "coal", and
"cool". Note how the tongue hits the roof of the mouth farther back each
time? Well, "q" is farther still. It's as far as you can get.
>Q - no English equivalent. It is an overdone Klingon q, being
>more harsh and gutteral.
This one I got wrong until I heard the tape. It's an affricate, which
means it goes from being closed off completely to being closed off
partially, like "ch" (which starts as "t" and becomes "sh"). It's very
much like "q" becoming "H" (only the "H" is a little farther back). In
fact, "Q" and "H" are the two sounds I find most confusable.
>r - like the British r, or the Spanish rr. It is slighly rolled,
>or gargled, depending on physiology.
rolled. gargling it produces something pretty much indistinguishable from
"gh". If you can't roll, don't sweat it, but don't gargle.
>S - halfway between the English s and sh. It is
>hissed as if a snake said shh! Be quiet.
Not quite. Listen to the tape and read the description again. It's a
retroflex S, which means you put your tongue where I told you to put it for
"D", then pull it a little away from the top of your mouth, and make your
"s" through that. It tends to sound like a very breathy "sh".
>tlh as in the Aztec tetl, this sound is the first sound
>in the word Klingon. It is a bit softer than the Kl sound,
>being pronounced in the front of the mouth rather than the
>back.
Not a very helpful description, and there really isn't one. I'd try like
this: put your tongue like you were about to say a "t", only instead of
pulling the tip of your tongue away from your teeth and gums, drop the
*sides*. This leaves you in something bery close to the position for
saying "l", but don't turn on your voice. Just whisper that "l" for an
instant.
>uy - as in English gooey.
Not quite, but there's nothing closer. What's different is that "gooey" is
two syllables, but "ghuy" is one.
> ' - [apostrophe] a glottal stop, found (but not written) in English
>words such as uh-uh, and upsy daisy. Practice it.
It's tough for English speakers when in syllable-final position.
>Helpful Words
>These are some basic words you should know.
>nuq (newk) what?
Try "nook", or you might find a British person who says "nyook". Also,
point out that these pronunciations are rough guidelines at best.
>ghorgh (whorgh) when?
What's a "w" doing there?
>chay (chee, chie) how?
"chie", not "chee". and it't "chay'", with a glottal stop.
>HISaH (hee shah) Yes
It's "HISlaH", with an "l".
>HIja' (hee jaw') Yes
Why "jaw"? More like "jah", as in "Jah love".
>ghobe' (hoh be') No
Erg, that's a tough transliteration.
>maj (mahdge) good
>qab (cohb) bad
"cohb" looks to me like it shoudl be pronounced like "cobe" to rhyme with
"robe". "c" is an unfair letter to use in transliteration; it doesn't
have a consistent sound. Maybe "kahb", or if you want to use an English
word, "cob" is close.
Note also that "maj" is not an adjective, it's an exclamation. To describe
something as good, you need to use "QaQ".
>Dajang (Dah jahng) Repeat it.
>bojang (bow jahng) You all repeat it.
"jang" is "answer", not "repeat". Your English constructions look like
Imperatives to me, but the Klingon isn't. "Dajang" is not "repeat it", but
"You answer him/her/it..."
> VERB PREFIXES
>PREFIX-VERB-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9
> \ROVER/
>This is the verbal structure. All suffixes are ALWAYS
>put in the order they come in.
Looks to me like your diagram says that rover suffixes can come before the
verb! Rovers can come anywhere *after* the verb, except after a type 9
suffix (except, of course, that two of the rovers, -Qo' and -Ha', don't
really rove, but are always immediately after the verb).
>2. (you) Describe it.
You never said how to do imperatives.
>12. I care for it.
Did you point out that the "object" of "SaH" is what goes in a preposition
phrase in the English? I think you did.
>13. (you) Go.
Imperative.
>15. It goes with you.
>16. It goes with you all.
Did you say how to do "with"? That's actually a very complex sentence.
> Sop to eat SopwI' to be eaten
^^^^^^
Since when? "SopwI'" is "eater"; it's a noun. Klingon hasn't got a
passive voice. The impersonal ("-lu'") is close, but it's not the same
thing.
>Suffix 1: Oneself/one another
> -egh oneself -chuq one another
Typo in TKD; it's "-'egh".
> ex: I talk to myself jIjatlhegh (bI - jatlh - egh)
> We talk to ourselves majatlhchuq (ma - jatlh - chuq)
Point out that these require zero-object prefixes; it's not obvious.
> ex: You need to drink. chotlhutlhnIS (cho - tlhutlh - nIS)
"chotlhutlhnIS" is "you need to drink me". Perhaps a sign on a bottle in
Alice in Wonderland, but I'd be careful about saying it to a Klingon.
"bItlhutlhnIS" is "You need to drink".
> The chocolate is ready yuch SopwI'beH (SopwI' - beH)
> to be eaten.
> I'm afraid of being eaten. jISopwI'vIp (jI - SopwI' - vIp)
No. These don't work, because there's no verb for "to be eaten" in
Klingon. charghwI''s "yuch Sopruplu'" is okay (someone/something is ready
to eat the chocolate), but for complex reasons. Best to pick something
simple, like "labbeH De'wI'", the computer is configured to transmit.
You'll have to teach more word tho.
>Suffix 4:
> -moH cause to happen
> You let them hear. DaQoymoH (Da - Qoy - moH)
> (You cause them to hear)
Perhaps not the best example.
>Suffix 5: Indefinite subject/ability
> -lu' indefinite subject
> -laH can, able
> ex: Something/someone tells me. muja'lu' (mu - ja' - lu')
That's vIja'lu'. Prefixes are reversed in meaning with "lu'", see page 39
at the top.
>7. I'm afraid to keep it.
You may want to point out that Klingons don't use "-vIp" with a
first-person subject unless it's negated. See page 37.
>9. Something/someone is being eaten.
Not really expressible in Klingon. Not as such.
>10. She keeps it willingly.
No, "polqang" is "she is willing to keep it". That's not the same thing.
>16. You can keep eating it.
"-qa'" is more like "go back to eating it"; It might confuse folks.
> It seems to be eaten. SopwI'law' (SopwI' - law')
See above.
> ex: We ate it. maSoppu' (ma - Sop - pu')
> They have searched us. nunejta' (nu - nej - ta')
Please. "-pu'" is not the past tense. klingon has no tense. Okrand said
so. It has *aspect*. "maSoppu'" means "we have eaten" ("eaten it" would
have required wISoppu'), or "we had eaten" or "we will have eaten" or "we
would have eaten"... It's action that is completed by the time under
discussion. This is not the same as a past tense. Klingon doesn't mark
past tense. See the article in HolQeD.
> You all are helping. SuQaHlI' (Su - QaH - lI')
Emphasize that theis construction points out that you're helping with a
definite stopping point to the helping. See the article aggain.
> -vIS while (always used with Suffix 7)
Always used with "-taH", not just any 7.
> ex: We are going as soon as we eat. maghoSlI' maSopDI'
Huh? When we eat, we will be in the process of going? Listen to the Power
Klingon tape, for an example: 'uQ wISoppu'DI', maja'chuq. We will ytalk
after we have eaten dinner.
> We eat if we go. maSop maghoSchugh
> We eat before we go. maSop maghoSpa'
These sound the wrong way 'round to me, but you can have them in either
order, so it's okay.
> We are eating while we go maSoptaH maghoSvIS
maSop maghoStaHvIS. Remember, "-vIS" has to be on the verb with "-taH".
It never stands alone.
> We go for chocolate. yuch maghoSmeH
"In order that we go, chocolate?"? First of all, the "-meH" clause has to
come in front. Second of all, "-meH" means the verb is a subordinate
clause and cannot stand as the only verb in a sentence. You could say
"yuch wISuqmeH maghoS": "In order that we get chocolate, we go". That
works.
> He is the lucky one. Do'wI'
No, that means "a lucky one". It's a bare noun, not a sentence.
> We might go. maghoSjaj%
I think we're told that "-jaj" is used for expressing a wish or desire, not
possibility, so "maghoSjaj" is "may we go".
> We are going because we maghoSlI' maSopnISmo' need to eat.
Sorry, I screwed upo the formatting from here on down.
> lo' use
> lo'laHghach value
Hmm... not bad.
>Suffix Rovers: negative and emphatic
> -be' not
> -Qo' don't or won't
> -Ha' undo
> -qu' emphatic
Point out that "-Qo'" and "-Ha'" dojn't really rove. They just are called
that.
Also that the other rovers negate or emphasize the thing they immediately
follow.
> They hurl chunks. (They barf, SopHa'
> They undo their
eating. They chuck
> their cookies.)
> They really hurl! SopHa'qu'
Hee! I coined the same term for "vomit" when translating Jonah... tho now
I think I'm going to change it to "ghupHa'". It's not a good example
though. Use something in the canon.
>9. Something/someone ate it already.
The "already" is confusing; people may try to translate it.
>10. We may search for it.
See above regarding "-jaj".
>11. We don't need to talk.
This is why you need to talk about "-be'" as a true rover.
>17. They have eaten it while we have spoken.
While we spoke. This has to be translated with "-taHvIS", and "have
spoken" tempts them to use "-pu'", which won't work. Besides, it doesn't
make much sense in English this way.
> Tera'ngan Terran (Human)
Don't capitalize Klingon
> -Hom diminutive > -`a' augmentative
> ex: lots of chocolate yuch`a' > big child puq`a' > truce, temporary peace
rojHom > little ship DujHom
Not good examples. It's not size or wquantity. It's quality. It's an
augmentitive. A Duj'a' is a big ship, yes... but I could easily see a
twice-normal size mockup of a shuttecraft called a "DujHom tIn". Use the
canonical examples from the book; they're better.
>Suffix 2: Number/plural
Mention that plural-marking is optional?
>Suffix 5: Syntactic Markers
for the child puqvaD about the child puq`e'
It's not so much "about the child" but "it is the child that..." i.e.
"-'e'" makes the noun more emphatic in the sentence.
Mention the difference between numbers before nouns and numbers after
nouns?
> vulqan vIyaj (It is not necessary, when using first and second person to
>put the personal pronoun in the subject spot.)
Nor when using third person, except to disambiguate.
>In Klingon, the first letter of the sentence is not capitalized. And
>puncutation is not used. Suffixes indicate a statement, a question, >or
an exclamation.
Well, we use punctuation on this list, often. And so does Okrand, in the
card that comes with Power Klingon.
> Joining Nouns Joining Sentences > je `ej and > joq qoj and/or > ghap pagh
either/or > `ach, `a but, however
You have to say that noun conjunctions come *after* the nouns.
>sentences must reflect the same idea in the fullest form.
> So'wI' vIyaj `ach So'wI vIleghbe' I understand the cloaking
> device, but I don't see it
> (the cloaking device).
Not really. There's nothing wrong with "So'wI' vIyaj 'ach vIleghbe'" for
"I understand the cloaking device but I don't see it".
> pay' yuch DaSop You never eat chocolate.
"pay'" means "suddenly", not "never".
> rut yuch luSop They sometimes eat chocolate. > not puqpu'mo'
yuch wISopta' Because of the children, we > quickly
ate the chocolate.
(sorry about the formatting). "not" means "never". "nom" is quickly.
> DaH yuch boSoptaH You are eating the chocolate on
> purpose. > tugh yuch Sop vulqan The vulcan eats
chocolate soon.
"DaH" is now. Um, maybe these are right and the formatting screwup makes it
look wrong. In which case, nevermind.
>Klingon verbs ending in Verb Suffix 9 (other than -`a' and -wI')
>always occur in sentences with another verb. Hence, they are verbs
>in subordinate clauses.
I suppose the ones with "wi'" also; since they become nouns.
> cha DabaH qajatlhDI' > or qajatlhDI' cha DabaH Fire torpedoes when I say.
These are imperatives; should be "yIbaH".
> jatlhvIS DIHohpu' While they spoke, we killed them.
jatlhtaHvIS. Never shall there be -vIS without -taH.
> yuch Sopbogh puq vIlegh I see the child who eats the chocolate.
> mulegh yuch Sopbogh puq The child who eats the chocolate sees me.
Two-headed relative clauses like these are complicated; we know from
Okrandian sanction that you can use "-'e'" to disambiguate "the child who
ate the chocolate" from "the chocolate which the child ate". Not sure if
you want to mention that so early on.
All in all, informative, but try to fix some little mistakes...
~mark