tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 15 06:52:40 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 296
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 296
- Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 08:51:33 -0600
STOP IT GOD DAMN IT. I'VE ASKED YOU NINE THOUSAND TIMES TO UNSUBSCRIBE ME
NOW WOULD YOU FUCKING DO IT BEFORE I DRIVE OUT TO FUCKING FLORIDA AND THROW
YOUR SERVER INTO THE ATLANTIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> TLHINGAN-HOL Digest 296
>
>Topics covered in this issue include:
>
> 1) Re: New Klingon Primer
> by "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
> 2) Re: Q
> by "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
> 3) Re: New Klingon Primer
> by "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
> 4) nameing Klingon Letters
> by David Barron <[email protected]>
> 5) Reduplication & idioms (was DujHom chu' vIje'nIS)
> by Adam Walker <[email protected]>
> 6) Re: Q
> by Adam Walker <[email protected]>
> 7) haiku
> by Adam Walker <[email protected]>
> 8) Re [2]: Q
> by "Christian Matzke" <[email protected]>
> 9) Re: haiku
> by "d'Armond Speers" <[email protected]>
> 10) Re: Revision of help!
> by Adam Walker <[email protected]>
> 11) Re: lessons 4 and 5
> by hfp95118 <[email protected]>
> 12) Confusion and unconditional surrender (was: vocabulary..)
> by hfp95118 <[email protected]>
> 13) Re: haiku
> by Adam Walker <[email protected]>
> 14) Re: HeghlI' jIlwI'
> by [email protected] (Anthony Curran)
> 15) Re: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 294
> by [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
> 16) Maltz's Blues
> by [email protected] (Douglas A. McLeod)
> 17) Re: wov etc.
> by "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>
> 18) Re: New Klingon Primer
> by [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
> 19) Re: HeghlI' jIlwI'
> by [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
> 20) Re: Revision of help!
> by [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
> 21) Re: Reduplication & idioms (was DujHom chu' vIje'nIS)
> by [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
> 22) Re: DujHom chu' vIje'nIS
> by [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
> 23) Re: HeghlI' jIlwI'
> by [email protected] (Anthony Curran)
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 14:28:58 -0500
>From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: New Klingon Primer
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
>>Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 23:26:22 -0800
>>From: [email protected]
>
>>tlhIngan Hol HaDmeH paqHom vIghItlhpu'
>
>maj.
>
>>taghmeH mu'tlheghmey ngeb lo' 'oH
>
>qar'a'? qatlh? mu'tlheghmey teH'e' Dalo'nIS! :)
>
>>vaj pab wa' qech chel mIch Hoch
>
>Aaahh... jIyajchoH.
>
>>ja'chuq tlhIngan loD tera'ngan be' je 'e' lulaD ghojwI'pu'
>>'ej mu'ghomHom ngaS paqHomvam
>>'ej pab QIjchu' 'oH
>>'ej qeqnIS ghojwI'pu'
>
>maj.
>
>>Huch vIvI' 'e' vIchaw'lu'
>
>(chaq "net chaw'" DaghItlhlaH. mojlaw' "'e' vIchaw'lu'"; "object" 'oH
>"Huch vIvI'"'e'... 'ej "object" 'oHlaw' je "jIH"'e'! chay' DuH?)
>
>~mark
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 14:50:25 -0500
>From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: Q
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
>>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 07:33:25 -0800
>>From: Jeremy Cowan <[email protected]>
>
>>On Mon, 13 Nov 1995, Christian Matzke wrote:
>>> On 13 Nov 95 at 5:17, Elizabeth C. Hoyt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > Which reminds me: has anyone ever wondered about the *names* of the
>>> > letters in the Klingon alphabet, rather than the sounds they symbolize?
>>>
>>> I had toyed with using the first noun that appears in TKD under each
>>> Klingon letter.
>
>>The first noun isn't always the best. I'd go with more common nouns such
>>as be' and chor. Or maybe, to keep confusion down, words that are
>>unlikely to be used in conversation. However, Tengwar is the only
>>alphabet that I've ever noticed to name the letters after specific objects.
>
>It actually was the way alphabets started being named. The earliest
>alphabets (most believe) were the Semitic/Phoenician ones. And they
>started as pictograms that eventually came to represent their initial
>sounds. The names of the Hebrew letters still reflect those early
>meanings:
>
>'aleph ox, (or leader.)
>bet house
>gimel camel
>dalet door
>heh ?
>vav hook
>zayin weapon
>chet ?
>Tet goat
>yod hand
>kaph palm of hand
>lamed goad(?)
>mem water
>nun fish
>samech fulcrum
>`ayin eye
>peh mouth
>tzadi ?
>qof monkey
>resh head
>shin tooth
>tav mark
>
>These names were carried over to Greek, who learned letters from the
>Phoenicians. The words didn't mean anything to the Greeks, but they kept
>the names (alpha, beta, gamma, delta...). It was later, when the Etruscans
>learned the alphabet, that they decided to name vowels as the sound the
>vowel makes, stops as stop+"e", and continuants as the continuant (so it
>was a be ce de e fff zzz hhh i ka lll mmm nnn, etc). The continuants
>eventually developed "e" before them, as people had trouble saying just a
>continuant, c and k and q had their own history (note that above it's "ka"
>and not "ke"; that's because c was "ce" and q was "qu"), and h also did
>some weird things.
>
>>> That is until I remembered that no Klingon words start with vowels
>
>>Remeber one thing: the letters would still be written as solitary
>>letters. You are just looking for a way to represent the letters in
>>spoken language. If it were up to me (which it's not even close), I
>>would use the following:
>
>>bI chI DI ghI HI jI lI mI nI ngI pI qI QI rI SI tI tlhI vI
>>wI yI 'Iy' 'a 'e 'I 'o 'u
>
>It's possible, though perhaps they would also have drawn the distinction
>between stops and continuants, etc... And maybe they would put "'" in
>medial position (that's how "h" happened; the language lost its h/H sound,
>and so people could really say "hhh". So they worked as hard as they could
>to get a phonetic environment that let them get close. So they started
>saying things like "aha" "aHa", "akka", etc. So "h" became "acca" which
>became "aitch" in the same way that Latin "vacca" became "vache" in
>French.
>
>>I used "I" with all the consonants because, if I remember correctly from
>>the scrabble frequencies, it is the most often used vowel.
>
>>I wonder how the American Indians that Okrand has studied do the alphabet
>>and if that would influence an alphabet that he might provide us.
>
>Most Native American cultures don't have a native writing system. I think
>some Inuits do. The famous case of Cherokee is a syllabary, and presumably
>each graph is named by its syllable.
>
>~mark
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 14:54:00 -0500
>From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: New Klingon Primer
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
>>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 09:11:06 -0800
>>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>
>>According to [email protected]:
>
>>nuq bIH yepma'mey'e'?
>
>chaq "yupma'mey"?
>
>~mark
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 13:04:30 -0700 (MST)
>From: David Barron <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: nameing Klingon Letters
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
>janSIy offers:
>> > If it were up to me (which it's not even close), I
>> > would use the following:
>> >
>> > bI chI DI ghI HI jI lI mI nI ngI pI qI QI rI SI tI tlhI vI
>> > wI yI 'Iy' 'a 'e 'I 'o 'u
>
>
>While charghwI' suggests:
>> Taking your suggestion in mind,
>> I'll offer another version, equally without authority:
>>
>> 'ay bI' chI' DI' 'ey ghI' HIy 'I' jI' lIy' me' na' 'oy pIy qe' QIy
>> re' SI' te' tlhI' 'uy va' wI' yI' [and ... ummm.] 'u''o'.
>>
>
>qech QaQmey boghajneS.
>chaq matlh yu'laH *Okrand 'ej *Lawrence*vaD nuja'laH.
>
>david
>--
> David Barron || lup Hoch yIyInqu'
> Klingon Language Postal Course || qaStaHvIS wa' lup
> P.O. Box 37, Eagle ID 83616 || yInpu' wa'netlh yInmey
> It's FREE! Send Self-Addressed Stamped Envelope. Not available by E-mail!
> E-mail [email protected]
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 14:18:03 -0600
>From: Adam Walker <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Reduplication & idioms (was DujHom chu' vIje'nIS)
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
>Mark Shoulson wrote
>>
>> >Alan Anderson wrote 95-11-04 23:12:22 EST
>>
>> >vaj vIngevDI' vItI'chugh Huch vIlajbogh law' law' vItI'be'mo'
>Huch vIlajbogh > >law' puS.
>>
>> >I have a feeling that Klingon avoids redundant syllables. For example, they
>> >probably do not say {qu'qu'} for "very fierce" nor {taHtaH} for "it
continues
>> >to exist." I have even begun to make sure that I put something between
{vaj}
>> >and {vaj} for "....the warrior, ... then....." In the above sentence {law'
>> >law'} just doesn't feel right to me.
>>
>> I don't think I agree. There really isn't much evidence that Klingon
>> avoids repetitive syllables (they're not redundant; each is necessary). In
>> English, we quite happily attach "-ing" to "sing" and get "singing" and
>> don't care that the syllable is almost repeated. Particularly something
>> like law'/puS which obviously derived from the verb "law'"; why should it
>> not be used in conjunction with it? We also have canon evidence that
>> "vIlI'lI'" is proper Klingon (p.42); isn't that repetitive?
>>
>> ~mark
>>
>
>I had been wondering about reduplication in tlhingan Hol as well.
>How much evidence if any is there that this strategy is used in
>tlhingan Hol. Some languages make abundant use of it (eg.
>Indonesian) others don't. English uses this strategy some especially
>with adverbs (very, very really, really) and words like hokey-pokey
>or boogie woogie.
>
>Another feature I haven't come across yet (I'm still a novice, though
>so maby I just haven't seen it) is idoms. All human languages have
>them. In some languages like English and Chinese a large portion of
>communication takes place in the currency of idom. (ibid.) In other
>languages like Indonesian they are few and far between with most
>ideas expressed in a straightforward manner. I feel that tlhingan
>must fit in the second category, but does anyone know if there are
>any tlhingan idioms?
>
>Qapla'
>
>Qogh.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 14:29:01 -0600
>From: Adam Walker <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: Q
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
>>
>> >I wonder how the American Indians that Okrand has studied do the alphabet
>> >and if that would influence an alphabet that he might provide us.
>>
>> Most Native American cultures don't have a native writing system. I think
>> some Inuits do. The famous case of Cherokee is a syllabary, and presumably
>> each graph is named by its syllable.
>>
>> ~mark
>>
>>
>The Cree also have a native writing system as do at least one tribe
>in Alaska, though I forget which. Both are sylabic.
>
>Qapla'
>
>Qogh.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 14:40:07 -0600
>From: Adam Walker <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: haiku
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
>I sent this message a few days ago (Saturday I believe), but I don't
>remember ever seeing it show up on the list, so I decided to resend
>it.
>
>I sat down the other day to try my hand at the ancient tlhingan art of
>*Hayku'*. What do you think?
>
>jaghwIj nujvo''a'
>Doqbogh nIjtaH Iw'. Dunbej.
>'ItHa' jiH. yayqu"!
>
>
>
>Qapla'
>
>Qogh.
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 16:14:20 -0500
>From: "Christian Matzke" <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re [2]: Q
>Message-ID: <9511142110.AA05474@acsweb>
>
>On 14 Nov 95 at 10:23, William H. Martin <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> It gives it a realistic randomness to the sounds. I can hear
>> classrooms echoing across Qo'noS:
>>
>> 'ayyyy
>> bI' chI' DI' 'eyyyyyy
>> ghI', HIyyyyy...
>> 'I' jI' lIy' me' na' 'oyyyyy
>> pIyyyyyy
>> qe' QIyyyyy
>> re' SI' te' tlhI' 'uyyyyy
>> va' wI' yI'
>> 'u'o'.
>Weeeeeeee! That was fun! I actually caught myself singing this!
>I have been asked many times what the names of the
>letters are, and to me it really cheapens the language to say: "um, well,
there
>isn't one.", or to have to refer to the sounds with clunky expressions
>like "big Q" or "the letter 'tlh'". Even an informal arrangement like
>this is helpful.
>
>> chI' 'ay re' ghI' wI' 'I'
>
> me' 'ay SI' qe' 'ay 'u'o'
>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> "Had I not known that I was dead already,
> I would have mourned the loss of my life"
> -Ota Dokan, Japanese poet
> (written while a knife protruded from his chest)
>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 16:12:05 -0500 (EST)
>From: "d'Armond Speers" <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: haiku
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
>On Tue, 14 Nov 1995, Adam Walker wrote:
>
>> I sat down the other day to try my hand at the ancient tlhingan art of
>> *Hayku'*. What do you think?
>>
>> jaghwIj nujvo''a'
>> Doqbogh nIjtaH Iw'. Dunbej.
>> 'ItHa' jiH. yayqu"!
>
>jIyajchu'be'. nuq 'oH *Doq*'e'? (mu'tlhegh cha'). 'ej, *yay'*
>*jIH* je DaHechbej.
>
>Qaghmey mach DalIjlaH; ram. potlh nuq? bIghItlh! bImughtaHbe'!
>qechmeylIj DaghItlhmo' bIDubbej 'ej Daghojbej. 'ej mu'mey DaghItlhbogh
>vIlaD 'e' vItIvqu'. yIghItlhtaH!
>
>> Qogh.
>
>--Holtej
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 15:24:37 -0600
>From: Adam Walker <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected] (Adam Walker), [email protected],
>Subject: Re: Revision of help!
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
>I wrote:
>
>> I have rewritten my original sentance as follows:
>>
>> ghaHDaq Qampu' SuvwI''a'pu' law'. ghaHDaq Qampu'mo' Qaw'lu'.
>>
>
>>ghunchu'wI' wrote:
>>
>>"Many great warriors have stood on him.
>>Because they have stood on him he is distroied."
>>
>>>Better?
>>
>>Much better. This is grammatical. It even makes sense. :-)
>>Unless my translation differs from your intended meaning, you
>>have correctly written clear, understandable tlhingan Hol.
>>
>
>OOPS! This mistake ranks up there with the time I wore a silver
>bannana in Spanish class, the time I mistook my head for a coconut
>in Indonesian, and the time I called a friend a fine horse instead of
>asking her "How are you?" in Mandarin!!!!
>
>This is not exactly what I wanted to say. This is a really "painful"
>mistake! ;-)
>
>
>yoDtargh wrote:
>
>>Many great warriors have stood on him/her. Because they have stood
>>on him/her, it destroys him.
>>
>>Just a couple ofcomments... If you are trying your hand at writing
>>Klingon for the first time, it really is better that you give an
>>accompanying English translation. I can assure you that it would in
>>no way influence my translation of your Klingon, but it would
>>influence my critique of the sentence. You may write a grammatically
>>correct sentence, and as a result, I (or the next Beginner's
>>Grammarian) may not comment on it; but it's possible what you wrote
>>may not mean what you meant to say.
>>
>
>OK. Wisdom accepted. What I was trying to say was -- "Many great
>warriors had stood BEFORE him. Because they stood BEFORE him they
>were destroied."
>
>
>~mark wrote:
>
>>Let's see...
>>"many great warriors have stood on/at him. Because they had stood
>>on/at him, [they] were destroyed."
>>
>
>OK. One more try using you suggestions and my own attempt to get the
>warroirs to stand in the right place.
>
>'etDaq ghaH Qampu' SuvwI''a'pu' law'. 'etDaq ghaH Qampu'mo'
>luQaw'lu'.
>
>or
>'etDaq ghaH Qampu'mo' SuvwI''a'pu' law' luQaw'lu'.
>
>OK I realize that's really two attempts, but did I get it right this
>time??
>
>Qapla'
>
>Qogh.
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 12:36:23 +0000 (GMT)
>From: hfp95118 <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: lessons 4 and 5
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
>>
>> On 13 Nov 95 at 11:22, c.j.atherton-cj <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > KLINGON SIGN LANGUAGE, LESSON 6: enraged female gnashing teeth and waving
>> > many sharp objects has been found to translate almost exactly as
>> > "GROVEL *NOW*".
>> > vanya
>
>> I seem to have missed lessons 4 and 5. Anybody want to compile a
>> list?
>> maSqa'
>
>jIQeHtaHvIS *lessons 4 & 5* vIbachta'. ;)
>
>Oh. Wow. Um, I have a question...? ... using a continuous aspect-marker
>in "WHILE I was being angry", is it then okay to use a perfective marker
>and say "I shot (completed action) lessons 4 and 5"? ... or do the two
>have to agree? (if anyone thinks I'm asking too many questions to which
>the answers are obvious to anyone who's read TKD properly, please say so
>and I won't take offence :)
>
>..from the example given in TKD, *SutlhtaHvIS chaH DIHIvpu'*, I'd say
>that what I've written is okay, but I just wanted to check.
>
>
>vanya. (anyone want to come up with a Bajoran smilie? ;)
>
>************************************************************************
>Chris Atherton
>[email protected]
>
>"OOoooooeeeeeEEEE eeeeoo? Ooo oooee EE
>eeoooo". - Tiny Clanger.
>************************************************************************
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 16:18:40 +0000 (GMT)
>From: hfp95118 <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Confusion and unconditional surrender (was: vocabulary..)
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
>> >jIQoS 'ach jabbI'IDvam lI'nISlu'
>> >
>> >(is that a passable translation, in context, of, "(Well,) I'm sorry, but
>> >someone had to say it.." ?)
>>
>> toH
>> "veqlarghmo' vIghItlh" vImaSqu'
>> 'ach bIQoS'a' ... Suqoy'qang'a' qatlh
>> toDujbe''a' SoH
>
>Um, I'm confused. I'm going to write what I think this says, but it looks
>wrong to me. I don't want to be questioning the writings of my elders and
>betters (well, elders, at least ;) but, I'll say it again, I'm confused.
>My interpretation:
>
>"veqlarghmo' vIghItlh" vImaSqu'
> I prefer "because of the fek'lhr, I wrote it/this"
>
>'ach bIQoS'a' ... SuQoy'qang'a' qatlh
> But are you sorry? ... why are you (all) willing to beg?
> (this is where I start to get confused: isn't the coexistance
> here of the question *qatlh and the question-suffix -'a'
> superfluous?)
>
>toDujbe''a' SoH
> I don't get this :( ... to me it looks like you stuck a -be, a
> verb-suffix, onto a noun. I think what you're asking is "are you
> without courage?"
>
>
>Darn, I hate this. Every time I ask a question here, I get it all wrong
>and someone jumps on me (wearing big boots ;) .. Kahless guide me and let
>me have it RIGHT for a change! ;)
>
>>
>> (cheghqu' Soqra'tIS ... Doghjeyraj vIneH tera'nganpu')
>> *snicker* *snicker* }};-p
>
>choghIjbe' ( but then again, maybe that's 'cos I'm Bajoran ;) ...
>*slipper*meywIj mojpu' no'lI' SurghDu' ;P
>
>(I wanted to say "I made your ancestors' skins into slippers" but it
>didn't seem to work and I had to settle for this more passive translation;
>does it make sense to anyone as an insult?)
>
>> vay' yIHub Hoch 'ej Hoch tIHub vay' - DumaS
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> vIta'pu'be' !!! tlhIngan ghaH *Bart Simpson*'e'
>> Soqra'tIS [email protected]
>
>vanya
>
>--
>************************************************************************
>Chris Atherton
>[email protected]
>
>"OOoooooeeeeeEEEE eeeeoo? Ooo oooee EE
>eeoooo". - Tiny Clanger.
>************************************************************************
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 16:36:05 -0600
>From: Adam Walker <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected] (d'Armond Speers),
>Subject: Re: haiku
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
>> Date sent: 14-Nov-95 15:14:06 -0600
>> From: DSPEERS @ INTERNET (d'Armond Speers) {[email protected]}
>> To: TLHINGAN @ INTERNET (Multiple recipients of list)
{[email protected]}
>> Send reply to: TLHINGAN @ INTERNET {[email protected]}
>> Subject: Re: haiku
>
>> On Tue, 14 Nov 1995, Adam Walker wrote:
>>
>> > I sat down the other day to try my hand at the ancient tlhingan art of
>> > *Hayku'*. What do you think?
>> >
>> > jaghwIj nujvo''a'
>> > Doqbogh nIjtaH Iw'. Dunbej.
>> > 'ItHa' jiH. yayqu"!
>>
>> jIyajchu'be'. nuq 'oH *Doq*'e'? (mu'tlhegh cha'). 'ej, *yay'*
>> *jIH* je DaHechbej.
>>
>> Qaghmey mach DalIjlaH; ram. potlh nuq? bIghItlh! bImughtaHbe'!
>> qechmeylIj DaghItlhmo' bIDubbej 'ej Daghojbej. 'ej mu'mey DaghItlhbogh
>> vIlaD 'e' vItIvqu'. yIghItlhtaH!
>>
>> > Qogh.
>>
>> --Holtej
>>
>Dayajchu'be'mo' jIQoS, 'ach *Hayku'*'e'! OK, I'm going to let the
>tlhingan Hol go for the moment before I get myself in trouble with
>some stupid mistake! Yes, it is my own ghitlh. I would not mu'nIH,
>like that. [Yes, I'm aware that I can't combine nouns and verbs like
>I just did, but it conveys my meaning, and I thought it was sort of
>clever.] :) If I had been translating I would have credited the
>source. I'm a writer, too, and I'd want my work credited. We have
>laws in this country...er, planet...ah, Empire. Are tlhingan
>copyrights honored in Federation territory??
>
>I thought (perhaps wrongly) that relative clauses like Doqbogh had to
>come first in the sentence. That's why it's there, but it refers to
>the blood.
>
>'ItHa' jIH is supposed to convey an idea like "My depression has
>lifted." If it's way off or totally ungrammatical I'll try to change
>it, but as long as it's close and passable taking into account poetic
>licence I'd like to leave it.
>
>The last word is yay -- victory not yay' -- be shocked!
>
>Also in your sentence "'ej, *yay'* *jIH* je DaHechbej." shouldn't it
>be DaHechbej'a' with the interrogative particle?
>
>Qapla'
>
>Qogh.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 18:09:58 -0600
>From: [email protected] (Anthony Curran)
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: HeghlI' jIlwI'
>Message-ID: <v01530503accedb888dbe@[204.178.72.243]>
>
>
>
>
>Sun, 12 Nov 1995 20:25:42 -0800,
>vIghItlh,
>
>>>jabbI'ID tlheghvam vIghoS 'ej vay' vItlhobpa' charghwI' vInaD 'e' vIneH.
>>>jIlDaj ngaqmo' wIquvnIS
>
>Qu'vatlh. <wIquvnISmoH> vIjatlh 'e' vIHech
>
>>>ghItlh chargwI'
>
>>>>ghaHvaD pagh vIta'laH.
>>>>jIbejlaH neH.
>>>>jIlI'be'.
>
>>>charghwI' mu'tlheghDaq mu' <lI'> vIyajbe'
>>>nuq Hech'a'?
>
>ghItlh ~mark
>
>>yu' mu' "nuq". mojaq ("-'a'") yIlo'Qo'.
>>
>>~mark
>
>luq
>nuq Hech?
>
>
>Anthony Curran
>
>qo'ran
>
>[email protected]
>http://www.airmail.net/~acurran
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 22:10:43 -0500
>From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 294
>Message-ID: <v01520d00acced53e246a@[205.139.170.201]>
>
>Matt Treyvaud writes:
>>mu'tlheghvam ghitlhlu'meH tera'ngan lo'lu'taHvIS, wot lo'be'lu'. "My
>>questions:" chaq "are" jIlo'nIS. "bIH yu'ghachwIj:" :)
>
>"While one uses a Terran in order to write this sentence, one doesn't find
>a verb." This sounds like you dictate your sentences to a Terran scribe.
>
>I was whining about your [excessive, IMHO] use of {-ghach}. You've
>added a "to be" to a nominalized verb, which is [again, IMHO] similar
>to putting wheels on a rowboat that was built by removing the wheels
>from a wagon. Where English often talks about things "being", I see
>tlhIngan Hol focusing on action. I believe that trying to force the
>verb "question" to act as a noun goes against the spirit of the verb
>itself. Instead of "this is a question", I'd say "I question" -- or
>better yet, "Answer me!"
>
>-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 22:50:41 -0500
>From: [email protected] (Douglas A. McLeod)
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Maltz's Blues
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
>I'm working on the Door Repair Guy prison episode, and I'm including a
>blues song sung by Maltz (who has learned the blues harp). I'm a little
>worried by the grammar at the end of the second stanza. The double
>negative at the end of the first stanza is intentional (as in <ain't no>).
>
>ghu' SuD vIghaj,
>ghu' Sud vIghaj.
>bIghHa'vamDaq jIba'
>'ej pagh be' vItIvbe'.
>
>qa'vam wIneHpu',
>qa'vam wIneHpu'.
>'a mutojta' jaghwI'
>QumwI' lo'taDI'.
>
>tugh qaHoH.
>tugh qaHoh lay' ghaH.
>'a jIHeghbe'taH,
>jIHeghbe'taH.
>
>
>Douglas M.
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 20:28:09 -0800 (PST)
>From: "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: wov etc.
>Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9511142051.A8408-0100000@netcom8>
>
>
>On Sat, 11 Nov 1995, Christian Matzke wrote:
>
>> We can all get the post-TKD words from back issues of HolQeD, but
>> what about more subtle additions to our vocabulary (i.e. new
>> definitions of old terms)?
>> I am under the impression that we learned in the Hallmark ad
>> that wov could be used as a noun. I believe the sentance began: "wov
>> Qapchu'...". Is this not so?
>
>I don't think it was ever definitively decided what was said. I would
>like to see the script published in HolQeD, so we can tell exactly what
>was said.
>
>> I have also heard that Okrand created a new adverb from a regular
>> verb for one of the trading cards. Does anyone know what it was?
>
>motlh (usually) (from trading card SP3)
>
>> I agree with the statement that it is best for us to look through
>> and copy down the words in HolQeD instead of having them handed to
>> us. But other words, such as the ones listed above have never been
>> explicitly stated in HolQeD. Does anybody have a list of these
>> terms? I think they should be listed, as they won't be so easily
>> picked out as new words and could lead to some confusion.
>
>For the most part, I haven't observed a lot of radical new meanings to old
>words. You can still tell what is being said.
>
>
>> maSqa'
>
>yoDtargh
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 00:21:45 -0500
>From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: New Klingon Primer
>Message-ID: <v01520d02accf192e7cd4@[205.139.170.201]>
>
>peHruS: > taghmeH mu'tlheghmey ngeb lo' 'oH
>
>~mark: > qar'a'? qatlh? mu'tlheghmey teH'e' Dalo'nIS! :)
>
><ngeb> ghItlh 'e' Hechbe'ba' peHruS. lughba' <ngeD>.
>mu'tlhegh ngeb vIqImHa' 'ach nom mu'tlhegh ngeD vIlaDlaH.
>
>peHruS: > Huch vIvI' 'e' vIchaw'lu'
>
>mISqu' mu'tlheghvam. lughlaHbe' {...'e' vIchaw'lu'}.
>
>-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 00:21:48 -0500
>From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: HeghlI' jIlwI'
>Message-ID: <v01520d03accf1fdf0f6d@[205.139.170.201]>
>
>charghwI': > jIlI'be'.
>
>qo'ran: > nuq Hech?
>
>lI'be' charghwI'. DuQaH'a'?
>
>{lI'} = "be useful"
>
>-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 00:22:06 -0500
>From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: Revision of help!
>Message-ID: <v01520d04accf213d619a@[205.139.170.201]>
>
>I wrote:
>>Unless my translation differs from your intended meaning, you
>>have correctly written clear, understandable tlhingan Hol.
>
>Qogh wrote:
>>OOPS!
>
>I'm glad I decided to put in that "Unless..."!
>
>>This is not exactly what I wanted to say. This is a really "painful"
>>mistake! ;-)
>
>Hey, we TRIED to warn you! :-)
>
>>OK. Wisdom accepted. What I was trying to say was -- "Many great
>>warriors had stood BEFORE him. Because they stood BEFORE him they
>>were destroied."
>
>>'etDaq ghaH Qampu' SuvwI''a'pu' law'. 'etDaq ghaH Qampu'mo'
>>luQaw'lu'.
>>
>>or
>>'etDaq ghaH Qampu'mo' SuvwI''a'pu' law' luQaw'lu'.
>>OK I realize that's really two attempts, but did I get it right this
>>time??
>
>"Because many great warriors have stood him of at front, one destroys them."
>
>Close. "In front of him" would be {'etDajDaq}, "at his front".
>
>But you're obviously translating WORDS here, not IDEAS. The translation
>of "stand in front of him" doesn't really convey the meaning I think you
>want it to. Do you want it to mean that they simply stood in front of
>him? Are you trying to imply that they challenged him and lost? If so,
>don't just imply it. Say it.
>
>I can understand your attachment to the words you're using. You've put
>a lot of energy into them. But if they don't mean what you intend them
>to mean, you need to let them go and find a better way to say what you
>mean.
>
>-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 00:22:10 -0500
>From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: Reduplication & idioms (was DujHom chu' vIje'nIS)
>Message-ID: <v01520d05accf257e6173@[205.139.170.201]>
>
>Qogh writes:
>>..does anyone know if there are any tlhingan idioms?
>
>I'm not sure if it fits your definition, but the {law'/puS} construction
>is apparently not to be taken literally, and {rIntaH} certainly carries
>more meaning than "it continues to be finished".
>
>Some time ago I noticed that {chu'wI'} "trigger" also means "new one"
>and I remarked on how the concept "trigger" matched the common events
>when a "new one" joined the mailing list. It's not common slang, but
>I think at least a few people here remember my post and recognize the
>reference.
>
>There's one true Klingon idiom that I know of: {qogh tuQmoHHa'}, which
>is slang for "do not hear" (refer to HolQeD Volume 2, Number 4).
>
>-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 00:21:41 -0500
>From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: DujHom chu' vIje'nIS
>Message-ID: <v01520d01accf0c246c9d@[205.139.170.201]>
>
>>vagh ben pa' loQ QapHa' luch 'ej muDDaq pey tlhuch luchvam. (*1)
>>
>>Since {ben} already means "years ago," I would not use {pa'} here as "before,
>>ago."
>
>{-pa'} the type 9 verb suffix does mean "before", but I wrote {pa'} the
>word, which is a noun meaning "there, over there, thereabouts". It's
>being used as a locative in my sentence. According to TKD 3.3.5, the
>nouns {naDev}, {pa'}, and {Dat} are never followed by {-Daq}, but act
>as locatives all by themselves.
>
>>My real reason for replying to this post, though, is the use of {tlhuch}.
>> Although TKD does not tell us the usage of Verbs, I feel that {tlhuch} means
>>to "exhaust [resources]."
>>To me, it does not convey "emit exhaust." I have not found any words in TKD
>>to express "emit," "expel," nor "cast."
>
>I believe I have found such a word: {tlhuch}! I base this opinion on
>several things. First, the word appears in the English-Klingon side of
>the dictionary adjacent to the noun {taQbang} "exhaust"; I believe that
>if Okrand had intended it to mean "use up" he would have recognized the
>ambiguity and used the words "use up" in its gloss. Second, there does
>not seem to be another word for "emit", but there IS a verb {loj} which
>means "be all gone", and {lojmoH} is perfect for "use up". Third, the
>word is similar to {tlhuH} "breathe" and {tlhIch} "smoke". It's a weak
>argument, but there's a similar similarity :-) involving {ja'}, {jach},
>{jatlh}, and even {jat}.
>
>>Try asking "What color is your parachute?" in Klingon.
>
>{SuD'a' muDDaq QIt bIpummeH luchlIj?} It's an unfair challenge.
>Try asking {qaStaHvIS poH nI' qanpu''a' weplIj tIq ngo'} in English.
>
>-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 00:23:04 -0600
>From: [email protected] (Anthony Curran)
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: HeghlI' jIlwI'
>Message-ID: <v01530500accf35c800c0@[204.178.72.243]>
>
>
>>{lI'} = "be useful"
>
>"TKD"Daq vISam. qatlh vIleghlaHbe'? mInDu' chu' vISuqnIS.
>
>>-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
>
>Anthony Curran
>
>qo'ran
>
>[email protected]
>http://www.airmail.net/~acurran
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of TLHINGAN-HOL Digest 296
>******************************
>
>