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

[lojmIt tI'wI' nuv]

DujanglaHchu'be' vay'. "Fluent" is such a squishy word. The problem is exacerbated by whether you mean "currently fluent" or "have ever been fluent". yoDtargh is a classic example. He was a Beginners' Grammarian. He was quite good. He came to a qep'a', participated generously. His company was much enjoyed. And he was never heard from again. Likely, he is not now fluent, unless he has changed his name and reappeared in some other guise.

I lack the vocabulary to consider myself fluent, and I don't get to listen to anyone speak the language except myself, so if I were to hear someone saying something outside my arbitrarily chosen, small vocabulary, without a lot of context, I'd be totally lost. But, with enough time and a dictionary, I can write or read anything in Klingon that anyone else can read or write, and I can write clearly a wider range of expression than many with more current fluency, and I was one of the first half dozen humans to acquire that level of skill. I have a "Friend of Maltz" certificate hanging on my wall at work. My boss was admiring it just yesterday, wondering what it said. (The English translation is there, but the font is small.)

I have had a larger vocabulary. I lost it due to disuse. My current family situation doesn't lend me much time to practice, and qep'a comes at a really bad time of year for my work. I see myself as a fading elder within the community.

There is little consistency among the group. Finding the boundaries such that one could assign a meaningful number would be impossible.

And for many of us, Kruge had a great line: "Who I am is not important."

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 24, 2012, at 6:27 AM, Lieven Litaer <lieven.litaer at web.de> wrote:

> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
> http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol