tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 11 18:38:26 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Klingon in "Don't copy that 2"

Doq (

The point that I would suggest that may have been missed here is that  
if you watch a movie, there is no recording process in effect. Yes, it  
was recorded in the past, but right now, it is merely being watched.

If you copy the movie, that is a recording process. It doesn't matter  
whether you are pointing a camera at the video screen, or if you are  
recording a copy of the original data. In both cases, you are  
recording. The point to the message is that you are welcome to watch  
the movie. You dishonor yourself if you record the movie.

You can watch it many times. You can memorize every pixel and sound.  
Just don't record it.

If you dishonor yourself, you are not rerecording it because you have  
not recorded it in the past. You are recording it for the first time.

qonqa'lu', 'ach Daqonqa'be' SoH. bIquvHa''eghmoHmoH DaqonmeH wanI'  
wa'DIch 'oHbogh.


jIbIvba', 'ach rut jIjatlhchu'meH jIjaltlhHa'nIS. ngoDvam SovluH.


On Sep 11, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Steven Boozer wrote:

> Voragh:
>>> 1. It's interesting that Okrand did not use {chenqa'moH} "make
>>> again" - *{De' Dachenqa'moHchugh} - which he has before:
> Doq:
>> Even stranger is that he didn't use {qon}. I'd think of it as more
>> appropriate, since "make" is one of those overused English words,  
>> like
>> "go" and "have" that stand in for more specific words when we're too
>> lazy to think of the better verb.
> My take is that {qon} refers to recording things for the first time  
> or composing original ideas, and not the "physical activity of  
> writing" (i.e. {ghItlh} "write").  What Okrand hasn't discussed  
> before now is how to refer to copying or reproducing something  
> already successfully "recorded" in whatever medium.  Do you "re- 
> record" *{qonqa'} it?  "Re-write" *{ghItlhqa'} it?  Now we know that  
> apparently you say "create an identical X" {X nIb chenmoH}.
> Here's what Okrand has said about {qon}:
> HQ 2.4:  Actually, this is the word translated in TKD as the verb  
> "record", meaning to make a record of something (whether this record  
> be written or a digital recording or an old-fashioned wax cylinder  
> or anything). Apparently Klingon songs are not composed by anybody-- 
> they're just out there, waiting to be hunted down, trapped, and  
> logged (that is, written down and/or taught to others.)
> TKW 179:  It does not matter whether this recording is visual,  
> digital, scratches in stone, or marks on paper.
> KGT 71:  The word used for "compose" is {qon}. This verb also means  
> "record" and is used whether the recording is by hand (that is,  
> written or even etched in stone), in a medium suitable for a  
> computer, or any other form. From the Klingon point of view, a song  
> is not the product of an individual's mind. It has somehow always  
> existed and is waiting for someone (the songwriter or, more  
> accurately, song recorder, {qonwI'}) to transcribe it ({qon}) and  
> then present it ({much}) to others.
> st.k (7/09/1998):  The verb for "write" in the sense of "compose" is  
> {qon}, literally "record." This is used for songs and also for  
> literary works (poems, plays, romance novels, and so on). As has  
> been pointed out, it's as if the song or story is somehow out there  
> and the "writer" comes into contact with it, extracts it (to use  
> Qov's nice phrase), and records it. The verb usually translated  
> "write," {ghItlh}, refers to the physical activity of writing  
> (moving the pencil around, chiseling, etc.)
>   The question is, if you can {ghItlh} it, must you also {qon} it?  
> That is, is everything that is written down the result of  
> composition (in the sense described above)?
>   The answer is "not necessarily." There's another verb, {gher},  
> which doesn't have a straightforward equivalent in English, but  
> which has sometimes been translated (not entirely satisfactorily) as  
> "formulate" or "compile" or "pull together." The idea seems to be  
> that of bringing thoughts together into some kind of reasonably  
> coherent form so that they can be conveyed to someone else.
>   Thus, one would usually say {naD tetlh gher} "he/she compiles the  
> Commendation List" or "he/she writes the Commendation List". (Maltz  
> laughed at, but accepted, {Soj tetlh gher} for "he/she writes the  
> grocery list".) One would probably {gher}, rather than {qon}, a  
> suggested list of readings, a gazetteer, a simple menu, or the  
> instructions for assembling a toy (assuming the latter is not really  
> an exercise in creative writing).
>   One might also say {QIn gher} "he/she formulates a message" or,  
> more colloquially, "he/she writes a message". But now it begins to  
> get tricky. Using {gher} here implies that the writer of the message  
> was passing along some information he or she got elsewhere, such as  
> scribbling down a telephone message. Saying {QIn qon} "he/she  
> composes a message" or "he/she writes a message" (literally "he/she  
> records a message") suggests that the writer is presenting some new  
> information as opposed to merely passing something along. It may  
> also imply that the written message has some sort of literary merit,  
> and thus be a compliment.
>   But not always. {HIDjolev qon} "he/she composes the menu" suggests  
> that the speaker thinks the list of available fare is written with a  
> certain literary flair. This is not likely to be said of menus in  
> Klingon restaurants (whose menus, if posted at all, tend to be  
> rather pithy), and thus could easily be taken as an insult.
>   Similarly, something like {bom gher} "he/she formulates the song"  
> would be taken as a disparaging comment about the song or its  
> composer (and is, in fact, sometimes heard when the song in question  
> is of non-Klingon origin).
>> I'd personally be happier if the root {chen} were used more instead  
>> of
>> universally using it as a component of {chenmoH}, just because while
>> lots of words often use {moH}, {chen} is almost exclusively used with
>> it. It just don't seem riiight.
> True, but {chen} has a "passive" feel to it; things just "build up,  
> take form, take shape" on their own.  (Our only known examples of  
> {chen} are the various arithmetical formulae (e.g. 4 + 3 = 7 {wej  
> boq loS; chen Soch} "four allies with three; seven forms").  There's  
> no agent involved.  For that you need to add {-moH}.
> --
> Voragh
> Canon Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level