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

[lojmIttI'wI'nuv]

I agree that {vum verengan} is difficult to parse because it can mean “The Ferengi works,” “the bastard’s Ferengi” or “the bastard, the Ferengi”. That last interpretation is the one I’d be most hesitant to take because it seems redundant, and the Klingon language doesn’t tend toward redundancy, evidenced by it’s handling of plurality.

We do need a Klingon word for “sniper”, unless they simply think it dishonorable to kill without being seen. They do use cloaking devices, after all.

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv



> On Feb 26, 2016, at 2:05 PM, qov at kli.org wrote:
> 
> In English we can say things like "that Ferengi bastard" or "those bastard
> crewmen" because in English almost any noun can jump up and be an adjective.
> That's not what is going on in Klingon. 
> 
> If I hear {vum verengan}, the first thing I'm going to think is that there's
> a Ferengi who couldn't manage to get out of work.  In fact if you say {vum
> verengan vImuS}, I'm going to think you forgot an 'e' or a -bogh before I
> figure out that you're trying to say {vum ghaH verenganvetlh'e' 'ej vImuS}.
> 
> 
> My first Klingon-using community was an online one that used the language by
> rote and routinely said tlhIngan be' and tlhIngan loD to denote female and
> male Klingons, so my instincts are not trustworthy for this construction. I
> have the feeling that there is canon where demonyms are used without commas
> in apposition to describe e.g. {verengan Suy} but I can't think of any right
> now. It's a construction you (qunnoq) like to use, so I suggest you explore
> some alternatives, just so that people have the best chance of understanding
> you.
> 
> latlh bopbogh qech: : DaHjaj po jIqettaHvIS cha' DIvI' Hol mu'tlheghHom
> vIqel.  pImchu'mo' muHaghmoH:  "sniper blind" vs. "blind sniper".   potlhqu'
> nungbogh mu'.
> 
> - Qov
> 
>> -----Original Message-----raitor
>> Sent: February 26, 2016 5:19
>> To: tlhingan-hol at kli.org
>> Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: ghum
>> 
>> On 2/26/2016 5:00 AM, mayql qunenoS wrote:
>>> jiH:
>>>> ghummaj wIjommeH vumvetlh verenganvaD Huch law' wInob.
>>>> in order to install our alarm we gave a lot of money to that bastard
>> ferengi.
>>> 
>>> SuStel:
>>>> Use {vum verenganvetlhvaD} if you want "that Ferengi who is a bastard"
>>>> (a noun-noun construction in which {vum} tells us what kind of
>>>> {verenganvetlh} we're dealing with) or {vumvetlhvaD verenganvaD} for
>>>> "for that bastard, the Ferengi" to put the nouns in apposition (in
> which
>> case they need to be of the same type).
>>> 
>>> 1. I realize now, that the correct way to say <that Ferengi who is a
>>> bastard> is {vum verenganvetlhvaD}.
>> 
>> Be aware that I chose that wording to make clear my meaning, not that it
> is
>> the "correct" way to say it. You could also say {vum ghaHbogh
> verengan'e'},
>> for instance. Normally I WOULD translate {vum verenganvetlhvaD} as "for
>> that Ferengi bastard," but that makes it harder to explain my meaning.
>> 
>>> Just out of curiosity though.. Could you please write, to what
>>> actually translates the phrase that I wrote <vumvetlh verenganvaD> ?
>>> After reading your comments indeed I *feel* it to be wrong, but I
>>> can't quite understand to what it translates. Perhaps <for the
>>> ferengi, that bastard> ?
>> 
>>> a. could you please explain what <to put the nouns in apposition>
>>> means ?
>>> b. could you please also explain what <in which case they need to be  >
> of
>> the same type> means ?
>> 
>> You see how you put a comma between "the ferengi" and "that bastard"?
>> You're equating them, saying that "the ferengi" and "that bastard" are the
>> same entity. That's what apposition does. That's not what you're doing
> here:
>> if the two phrases were the same entity, then both phrases would have {-
>> vaD} on them, to make them equal.
>> 
>> It's kind of like how you have to put {-DI'} on both verbs when you say
>> {jIghungDI' 'ej jItlhutlhDI' jISop 'ej jItlhutlh} "when I am hungry and
> when I
>> am thirsty I eat and I drink." You can't say {jIghungDI' 'ej jItlhutlh}
> for "when I
>> am hungry and thirsty" because it really means something like "when I am
>> hungry and [not when] I am thirsty." You have to make the two clauses "of
>> the same type" (both "when" clauses) because they play equal roles in the
>> sentence. The same is true when you put nouns in apposition: if the nouns
>> refer to the same entity, they need the same syntactic suffixes. You can't
>> just say {vumvetlh, verenganvaD}; you have to say {vumvetlhvaD,
>> verenganvaD}. Otherwise {vumvetlh} is playing no role in the sentence;
> it's
>> not a "for" noun.
>> 
>> Now here's the tricky part. {vumvetlh verenganvaD} means something like
>> "for the that-bastard Ferengi." It's not really meaningful. If you read it
> word-
>> for-suffix-for-word in English, yes, it comes out as "that bastard the
> Ferengi,"
>> but it doesn't mean "that bastard [comma] the Ferengi." It's not
> apposition.
>> 
>> That's why I suggested {vum verenganvetlhvaD} "for that Ferengi bastard."
>> This is a noun-noun construction, where the first noun modifies the second
>> noun's meaning. What kind of Ferengi? The bastard Ferengi.
>> 
>>> 2. I noticed that one of the proposed correct options, is the
>>> {vumvetlhvaD verenganvaD}. The first and most striking thing I observe
>>> is that we have the {-vaD} used twice i.e. in each one of the
>>> noun-noun pair. So far I believed that in noun-noun pairs we can't
>>> have the same suffix used simultaneously in each one of these nouns.
>> 
>> Because that option is NOT meant as a noun-noun construction, it is two
>> nouns in apposition. They both refer to the same entity. Write it this way
> to
>> avoid confusion: {vumvetlhvaD, verenganvaD} "for that bastard, for the
>> Ferengi."
>> 
>> --
>> SuStel
>> http://trimboli.name
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160226/9fe44d70/attachment.html>