[Tlhingan-hol] wa'maH cha' jatlhwI'pu' po'qu' chaH 'Iv'e'?

[Lieven Litaer]

First of all, I've always wondered when is defined a "fluent" speaker. I 
always say that I am fluent in Klingon, but I admit immediately that I 
do not know *all* the words. If knowing all the words counts, I would 
even dare to say that there are less then twelve speakers! ;-)

(PS: I am fluent in english, no doubt, and certainly do not know all the 
words {{:-D)

If you count "partially" fluent speakers, then I estimate it to be more 
than several hundreds. I keep meeting klingon speakers which I have 
never met before, and I'm sure there are many people learning klingon 
without telling us. (why should they? :-)

Am 24.03.2012 08:56, schrieb De'vID jonpIn:
> [1] - I wanted to say "[Sometimes it's even claimed that] someone is
> one of the twelve [fluent speakers]".  {wa'maH cha''e' wa' ghaH
> vay''e'}?  Also, this is one time I wish I was speaking Morskan: so I
> can emphasise the {vay''e'}.

I'd go like this {wa'maH cha' jatlhwI' po' wa' jatlhwI' ghaH'e'.}
A little more poetic and less literal:
{jatlhwI' po' ghom tay' wa' jatlhwI'vam}

> [2] - Has {pabpo'} never appeared in canon?  Strange, I'm sure
> everyone understands it.  I did find it in something written by {HoD
> Qanqor}.

I think this was introduced by the KLI - or even Krankor - for the 
grammarians in 1994? An abbreviation of {pabwI' po'} "experienced 
follower of rules"

> [3] - I wanted to say "I haven't been yet" but {wej}... oh, {wej}, why
> do you mean both "not yet" and "three"?

{wej qep'a' vISuch} is ambiguous, but Klingon is always context related:
--> {reH qep'a' vISuchta' vIneH, 'ach wej 'oH vISuchpu'.}

> [4] - My first attempt at "How many [fluent speakers] do you think
> there are?" was {jatlhwI'pu' po'qu' 'ar DanoH?}

Don't ask, give a command: {jatlhwI' po' mI' yInoH}
It's like "which weapon do you want?" {nuH DaneHbogh yIngu'.}

Lieven.