[Tlhingan-hol] new vocabulary: theatres and auditoriums, Genesis and The Big Bang Theory

[André Müller]

Okrand himself is sometimes inconsistent with the spaces between numbers
and nouns referring to past or present time units or combinations of
smaller and higher numbers in general. In cannon, we have:

leS: {cha'leS}, {loSleS}
Hu': {wejHu'} vs. {wej Hu'}
wen: {loSwen}
waQ: {wa'waQ}
ben: {loSmaH ben}, {cha'vatlh ben}, {cha' vatlh ben}(!), {vagh SanID ben},
{chorgh ben}, {'op ben}
nem: {wejnem}

So, I think it's okay to add or leave spaces in these cases.
- André

2015-03-17 17:52 GMT+01:00 <lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com>:

> Perhaps {HaSta’’a’ pa’} is better for a movie theater. The size and
> significance of the screen itself is what marks a movie theater as
> different from a living room where one watches HBO. Just an idea, not an
> argument. Who knows whether or not Klingons have movie theaters? If they
> don’t, then the important issue is what term would best give them an idea
> of what we mean by a movie theater.
>
> While it’s true that Klingon is primarily a spoken language, and the
> romanized alphabet is a phonetic representation of what is spoken (which is
> why it took years for Okrand to start using punctuation, primarily because
> he rarely wrote anything with enough words in it to require any), TKD did
> suggest that there was a difference between nouns in sequence and nouns run
> together. It’s not necessarily a difference with a hard boundary, but
> basically nouns combined with no space form new words, and it seems
> remarkably out of character to do this for nouns that do not combine to
> form a common concept. Klingon isn’t German.
>
> So, {puchpa’} is more appropriate than {lojmIttI’wI’nuvpa’}, since the
> former is a generic type of room and the latter borders on being a proper
> noun. I’ve always had the sense that all of these started out as discrete
> words that, over time, as they appear next to each other a lot, eventually
> lose the space or spaces between them. So, the words we have that are still
> separate, like {‘uQ pa’} are likely newer ones or less common ones, so that
> they haven’t yet gone through the language process of fossilization and
> compression to lose the space.
>
> I have, myself, argued in the past that Okrand is the guy who decides
> which of these gets the space and which doesn’t, and that the rest of us
> shouldn’t monkey with it all that much. I still think that’s true, though
> I’m not likely to be all that bothered by compression of common terms. For
> instance, I think it’s fine to say {cha’leS} or {loSHu’} or {cha’ leS} or
> {loS Hu’} and may myself do it different ways on different days, depending
> on my mood.
>
> But if anybody gets in my face demanding that I recognize a particular
> personal favorite pile of nouns with no spaces in between, if it doesn’t
> appear in canon, they won’t get a lot of sympathy from me. I don’t really
> care all that much; certainly not enough to update my lexicon with
> non-canon terms.
>
> lojmIt tI’wI’ nuv ‘utlh
> Retired Door Repair Guy
>
> > On Mar 17, 2015, at 10:30 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 16 March 2015 at 22:38, Lieven <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:
> >> Cool - where's the like button?  ;-)
> >>
> >> I'm pretty sure we can use {muchpa'} as well for going to the "movie
> >> theatre".
> >
> > ghaytan {HaSta muchpa'} luyaj tlhInganpu'
> >
> >> And even if these are "only" compound nouns of words we already know, at
> >> least we have canon definitions for these now.
> >>
> >> BTW, it makes me wonder again why there's a space in one word, and none
> in
> >> the other, but then I remember Okrand telling me that the Klingon
> language
> >> has always been intended to be a spoken language, and he didn't really
> care
> >> ybout space or no space in compound words.
> >
> > We don't know how Klingons would write these words, but there is some
> > consistency to attaching {pa'} to types of rooms in the Latin
> > transcription: {jolpa'}, {Qulpa'}, {vutpa'}, {mebpa'}, {puchpa'}, and
> > now {muchpa'}. However, {'uQ pa'} is the exception, although that was
> > given as an ad hoc example. On the other hand, consider that English
> > has "bathroom" (one word), but "living room" (two words). There's no
> > reason Klingon has to be consistent in having/not having a space
> > before {-pa'}.
> >
> > On 17 March 2015 at 02:02, nIqolay Q <niqolay0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Is this basically confirmation that "much" is also a noun for
> >> "performance"? (Or, at least, that it has the same breadth of meaning
> >> that "presentation" does in the phrase "feature presentation"?) I
> >> always suspected as much. (Err, so to speak.)
> >
> > {much} v. present, perform (music)
> > {much} n. presentation
> >
> > I think there was already a strong case based on the definitions that
> > the noun sense of {much} means anything which can be the object of the
> > verb {much}. The new evidence corroborates this.
> >
> > --
> > De'vID
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> > Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> > http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20150317/8a007bbc/attachment-0001.html>