[Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: boH

Sat Apr 2 07:14:35 PDT 2016

ok, thank you for clarifying this ! now I understand what you meant. I
hadn't realized I had been writing in such a way.

DaH, ghItlhmeH wIvwIj naQ vIQubnISqa'law'..
now, apparently I need to rethink my entire writing style..

mayqel mIv Hurgh qunnoq
may the klingon empire continue forever

On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 2:56 PM, lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
<lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com> wrote:
> You misunderstand me. You don't have to avoid complex concepts. You just have to avoid run-on sentences. Repackage your complex ideas into smaller sentences that fit together well. These smaller sentences can be quite elegant.
>
> Or, I could have said:
>
> You misunderstand me in that I never intended to suggest that you avoid complex concepts in favor of a more limited context of ideas, but instead intended that you avoid run-on sentences by repackaging your complex ideas into smaller, more elegant sentences that fit together well.
>
> You should not avoid {'e'}, {-bogh}, {-meH}, or even {-ghach}. Just don't beat them to death in every sentence you create. This most recent message is of a different character that I find quite good. It represents a shift in style that I highly recommend.
>
> Sent from my iPad
> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
>
>> On Apr 2, 2016, at 4:39 AM, mayql qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv, thank you for your comments.
>>
>>> {net DaSovlu’} is a mistake. The {-lu’} means that the
>>> second person in {Da-} is the object of the verb, but you
>>> are also trying to use {net} as the object of the verb.
>>
>> Yes, of course.. this occured because I thought that {Sov} meant "to
>> inform"  ; I thought I remembered correctly, so I didn't look it up
>> before writing it.
>>
>>> Basically, I think you overuse {‘e’} and {net}, trying hard to build long, complex Klingon sentences.
>>
>> actually no.. the last thing I'm trying to do, is intentionally trying
>> to build long or complex klingon sentences. What I am trying to do
>> though, is excercise my ability to express in klingon the concepts I
>> want to express. Maybe there are times, when this results in more
>> complex sentences. However this complexity is not the goal.
>>
>>> Very early on, Okrand discouraged us from this by explaining
>>> that Klingons often break up what an English speaker would pack
>>> into one sentence to form multiple sentences.
>>
>> This is very interesting indeed ; and I appreciate mostly your sharing
>> all this information, a' this brings up the problem..
>>
>> If someone refrains from {'e'}, {-bogh}, {ghach}, if someone limits
>> himself to sentences which contain one-two verbs max, if someone
>> demonizes complexity and condemns it altogether, then what kind of
>> meanings will he be able to express ? what kind of meanings wil he be
>> able to convey ?
>>
>> so I believe that..
>>
>> Hapvam wInuDmeH ghelmeH mu'tlheghvam maghel'eghnIS :
>> in order to examine this matter, we need to ask ourselves this question :
>>
>> qatlh tlhIngan Hol ghoj vay' ?
>> why someone learns klingon ?
>>
>> qech nap neH luDellaHmeH thlIngan Hol ghojchugh vay' vaj mu'tlhegh
>> Qatlh 'e' junnIS.
>> if someone learns klingon in order to be able to express only simple
>> concepts, then he needs to avoid complex sentences.
>>
>> 'a Hoch qechmey luDellaH neHchugh vaj mu'tlhegh Qatlh luqonnISlaH je.
>> but if someone wants to be able to express all concepts, then he needs
>> to be able to compose complex sentences too.
>>
>> tlhIngan Hol wIghojmeH nupIlmoHbogh meqmaj DIghaj.
>> we all possess our reasons which motivate us in order to learn klingon.
>>
>> meqwIj vIghaj je ; 'ej wa' meq neH vI'anglaHbe' bogh vIghaj.
>> I have my reasons too ; and I have a personal reason which I am unable
>> to reveal.
>>
>> meqmo' mu'tlhegh Qatlh vIghItlhnISlaH je.
>> because of this reason, I need to be able to write complex sentences too.
>>
>> *qanon*vo' ghoSbogh He'e' vIwuqba' rIntaH DaH 'e' vItlhoj.
>> now, I realize that I adopted a course which obviously strays away from canon.
>>
>> meqmo' vIDelpu'bogh 'ej *qanon* bop tetlhvammo', jaj mu' mu'tlhegh
>> vIghItlh 'e' vImev.
>> because of this reason, and because this list is about canon, I will
>> stop writing sentences with the word of the day.
>>
>> jIHvaD Hoch De'mey boghojmoHta'mo', Satlho' 'ej thlIHvaD tlho' vIyInqu'.
>> Thank you all for everything you taught me. I am really grateful.
>>
>> mayqel mIv Hurgh qunnoq
>> I will remember this dinner forever
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:17 PM, lojmIttI'wI'nuv
>> <lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> bIngDaq jIghItlh…
>>>
>>> pItlh
>>> lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 1, 2016, at 11:42 AM, mayql qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> loD boHqu' ghaH Qang'e' 'op ret net DaSovlu’…
>>>
>>>
>>> {net DaSovlu’} is a mistake. The {-lu’} means that the second person in
>>> {Da-} is the object of the verb, but you are also trying to use {net} as the
>>> object of the verb. This doesn’t work. {DaSovlu’} means “One knows you,” or
>>> “You are known.” There’s no grammatical spot left for {net}. This is not one
>>> of those “ditransitive” settings in Klingon grammar. The prefix trick
>>> doesn’t work here with {-lu’}, since {-lu’} is already twisting what the
>>> prefix means.
>>>
>>> If it could be done, it would wind up being the equivalent of {SoHvaD net
>>> Sovlu’}. “One knows it for your benefit,” or “One knows it to you.” Think
>>> {chab Danoblu’}, which is the equivalent of {SoHvaD chab noblu’}. I don’t
>>> think this is what you intended.
>>>
>>> Basically, I think you overuse {‘e’} and {net}, trying hard to build long,
>>> complex Klingon sentences. Very early on, Okrand discouraged us from this by
>>> explaining that Klingons often break up what an English speaker would pack
>>> into one sentence to form multiple sentences. It is really uncharacteristic
>>> of the language to try to pack so much into one sentence.
>>>
>>> It’s not wrong to use {‘e’}, but there is such a thing as using it too
>>> often. In Klingon, a sentence is a sentence, and every now and then, you can
>>> use one as a direct object of another sentence, but if more than one out of
>>> ten of your sentences is using {‘e’}, then you should stop and think about
>>> this.
>>>
>>> Look at extended works in canon or the stories that Qov has written or at
>>> Hamlet or ghIlghameS and see how often they use {‘e’}.
>>>
>>> There are a lot of tools in Klingon grammar. Use all of them. Don’t overuse
>>> a couple of them.
>>>
>>> When I started, everyone was overusing {-ghach}. Once that fad passed, they
>>> started overusing {-bogh}. {‘e’} is also a favorite because each of these
>>> satisfies the urge to show off how you can build a really long, complex
>>> sentence in Klingon.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, for a skilled speaker of the language, this is not a goal.
>>>
>>> I don’t think that I’m going too far out on a limb to suggest that more
>>> skilled Klingonists generally try for two goals:
>>>
>>> 1. To write things in Klingon that are easy to understand. This encourages
>>> shorter sentences, and the skill to know how to put short sentences near
>>> each other in a way that makes meaning clear.
>>>
>>> 2. To write things with a precise meaning (or a humorously or usefully
>>> ambiguous meaning). There’s something really sweet in coming up with exactly
>>> the right affixes to make a word mean exactly what you want it to mean.
>>>
>>> It’s more common to have a few, large words rather than a long, complex
>>> combination of lots of words.
>>>
>>> Now and then, it’s okay to write a long sentence, but I suspect this is what
>>> SuStel was getting at when he chose the word “loquacious”.
>>>
>>> a' Duj luneHpu'bogh DaHIj
>>> 'e' DamIm 'e' DawIv. meqmo' DabIjqu'lu’.
>>>
>>>
>>> "But you choose that you delay that you deliver the ship which THEY had
>>> wanted." Your English translation says “HE” wanted.
>>>
>>> Again, you overuse {‘e’}. Stringing two of them together may seem very
>>> natural in English, but in Klingon, it is odd. On rare occasions, it might
>>> work fine, but I get the sense that to you, this is just how one speaks
>>> Klingon. You should consider backing off on that for a bit in order to
>>> exercise other tools of grammar. Give this one a rest.
>>>
>>> you have been informed that the chancellor is a very impatient man,
>>> still you chose to delay that you deliver the vessels he requested.
>>> for that reason, you will be severely punished.
>>>
>>>
>>> Note that even in English, you are overpacking sentences. Your first comma
>>> should arguably have been a period.
>>>
>>> Here’s how I’d do it.
>>>
>>> boHqu’bej Qang. nom SoHvo’ Duj pIHpu’, ‘ach bImIm. DubelHa’mo’ vIbIjqu’.
>>>
>>> No sense pussy-footing about who will do the punishing… If I was not in the
>>> position of dealing out the punishment, I would not likely be talking about
>>> this to you. A Klingon doesn’t whine about someone not performing well. He
>>> gets in that person’s face and directly addresses the topic as specifically
>>> and effectively as he can. "The chancellor is definitely impatient. He
>>> expected a ship from you promptly, but you delayed. I will punish you a lot
>>> for displeasing him.”
>>>
>>> There are no twists in the grammar to get lost in. Each piece is crisp and
>>> clear. I thought through the sequence of the sentences in Klingon as I would
>>> have though through phrases in a longer sentence in English. It’s a
>>> different thought process.
>>>
>>> Most Klingon sentences have one or two verbs. If you find yourself packing
>>> three or four or five verbs in one sentence, stop yourself and reconsider.
>>> Packing lots of verbs in one sentence is not a highly valued skill in
>>> Klingon. It’s tantamount to keeping dramatically clean fingernails.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol