[[ [2000-10-02] OCR scanned by zrajm [2002-07-12] Corrected minor error in brackets. [2013-04-11] minor source update Style: {}=bold, <>=italics, paginated Type: article Date: March 1999 Title: Maltz Online Author: Marc Okrand (edited by Lawrence M. Schoen) Source: <{HolQeD} 8:1>, pages 7--12 Publisher: Klingon Language Institute, Flourtown, PA, ISSN 1061-2327 Summary: : "Maltz Online", from <{HolQeD} 8:1>, pages 7--12 : Article edited by Lawrence M. Schoen, text by Marc Okrand, March 1999 : Klingon Language Institute, Flourtown, PA : ISSN 1061-2327 ]][[p.7]] Maltz Online What we call "brown" would be described in Klingon by using the verb {Doq} . If the context is dear (such as contrasting a brown thing with a thing that cannot be described as {Doq}, such as something that's {SuD} ), {Doq} alone is good enough. Thus, if there are two drinking cups, one brown and one blue, one might say: {HIvje' Doq vIneH} I want the {Doq} cup Only the brown cup could be described as {Doq}; the blue cup is definitely not {Doq} since it is {SuD}. On the other hand, to be more precise when talking about the color (when, for example, there's a brown cup and a red cup), Klingons would typically use the phrase: {Doq 'ej wovbe'} be orange, red and not be bright To get even more specific (to be able to refer to different kinds of browns) would involve comparisons. For example: {Doq 'ej Qaj wuS rur} be orange, red and resemble kradge lips The lips of the kradge are presumably a particular shade of brown. ------------------- In English, the preposition "in" is sometimes locative (that is, referring to location) in meaning (e.g., "in the house," "on the table") but sometimes not ("trust in God," "believe in magic"). In fact, in English, "in" frequently doesn't have a literally locative sense. We use it all over the place: "in debt," "work in television," "in preparing this report," "speaking in Klingon," and so on. Likewise, in addition to the locative uses of the English preposition "from" ("run from the burning house," "traveled from Paris"), there are non-locative uses ("know right from wrong," "stop me from eating"). The story's the same for other English prepositions (for example, locative "on the table," non-locative "go on with your story;" locative "under the table," non-locative "under discussion"). In Klingon, however, the noun suffixes {-Daq} (the general locative) and {-vo'} express only notions related to space ("to a place," "in a place," "from a place," and so on). They are thus not the same as English prepositions, which have a wider range of usage. ------------------- As far as I know, {'ej} means "and" in the sense of "in addition," "also," "as well as," and the like. It does not have any temporal or sequential implications, That is, it does not (by itself) mean "and then." For example, Klingon {jISop 'ej jItlhutlh} means "I eat and also I drink." It could refer to events that occur in alternating fashion (eat some, drink some, eat some, drink some more) or, especially in the case of some Klingons, events that occur pretty much simultaneously. It could also [[p.8]] mean "I eat and then I drink," but it does not necessarily mean that. If that is the intended meaning (and if being a little vague or ambiguous or unclear will cause misunderstanding and hence discomfort), additional stuff must be added or the whole thing must be rephrased to make the meaning explicit (such as {jItlhutlhpa' jISop} ). Similarly, the most likely interpretation of {jItlhutlh 'ej jIQong} is not that I drink in my sleep (though it could be used for that if I really did it), but rather simply "I drink and also I sleep," a listing of two things I do, presumably (but not explicitly) not at the same time. Then there's {qaDuQ 'ej bIregh} . It probably would be used when the stabbing precedes (and is the direct cause of) the bleeding. But it doesn't explicitly say that; it only says "I stab you" and it also says "you bleed." The sequential interpretation (and/or the cause-and-effect interpretation) is due to the way the world works. Or some worlds. Since it is possible to say either {jISop, jItlhutlh} or {jISop 'ej jItlhutlh} to refer to the same thing, it might seem as though {'ej} is optional. Grammatically, that's fair to say. In terms of meaning, however, when {'ej} is used, it adds something; it emphasizes or points out some sort of connection between the two events -- though not necessarily a temporal one. Finally, although I've been referring to "events," the same holds for states and conditions and the like. Thus, {jIghung 'ej jIQeH} could be used if first I'm hungry and then (whether as a result of the pangs or not) I get angry, or if I'm hungry and angry at the same time, or if I waver between the two. In short, {'ej} is neutral as to time. The verb for "write" in the sense of "compose" is {qon}, literally . This is used for songs and also for literary works (poems, plays, romance novels, and so on). As has been pointed out, it's as if the song or story is somehow out there and the "writer" comes into contact with it, extracts it, and records it. The verb usually translated "write," {ghItlh}, refers to the physical activity of writing (moving the pencil around, chiseling, etc.) The question is, if you can {ghItlh} it, must you also {qon} it? That is, is everything that is written down the result of composition (in the sense described above)? The answer is "not necessarily." There's another verb, {gher}, which doesn't have a straightforward equivalent in English, but which has sometimes been translated (not entirely satisfactorily) as "formulate" or "compile" or "pull together." The idea seems to be that of bringing thoughts together into some kind of reasonably coherent form so that they can be conveyed to someone else. Thus, one would usually say {naD tetlh gher} or . (Maltz laughed at, but accepted, {Soj tetlh gher} for .) One would probably {gher}, rather than {qon}, a suggested list of [[p.9]] readings, a gazetteer, a simple menu, or the instructions for assembling a toy (assuming the latter is not really an exercise in creative writing). One might also say {QIn gher} or, more colloquially, . But now it begins to get tricky. Using {gher} here implies that the writer of the message was passing along some information he or she got elsewhere, such as scribbling down a telephone message. Saying {QIn qon} or (literally ) suggests that the writer is presenting some new information as opposed to merely passing something along. It may also imply that the written message has some sort of literary merit, and thus be a compliment. But not always. {HIDjolev qon} suggests that the speaker thinks the list of available fare is written with a certain literary flair. This is not likely to be said of menus in Klingon restaurants (whose menus, if posted at all, tend to be rather pithy), and thus could easily be taken as an insult. Similarly, something like {bom gher} would be taken as a disparaging comment about the song or its composer (and is, in fact, sometimes heard when the song in question is of non- [[keep hyphen]] Klingon origin). ------------------- Actually, there are several words referring to : An interior wall (such as a wall separating your living room from your kitchen) is a {tlhoy'}. An exterior wall (that is, a wall which separates the inside of a building from the outside) is a {reD}. For the interior side of an exterior wall, it is quite common to use {tlhoy'}, but the phrase {pa' reD}, literally ({pa'} ) is also heard, referring to the wall in a room which faces outside (as opposed to the other walls in the room whose other sides are still indoors). The wall around a city is a {yergho}, which is apparently derived from {yer} , plus {gho} . A wall which divides a territory into parts (such as the Berlin Wall) is also called a {tlhoy'}, even though neither side of it is the interior of a structure. On occasion, for clarity, such a wall is termed a {chevwI' tlhoy'} ({chev} , {-wI'} ) or a {pIn tlhoy'}, literally , presumably dating back to a time when each subterritory had a specific person in charge. The phrase {pa' tlhoy'} is also heard from time to time, but usually only when it is necessary to distinguish the sense of {tlhoy'} from the sense. A {tlhoy'} need not be vertical. In a multistory structure, the stories are separated by what Klingon architects and builders call a {tlhoy' SaS} ({tlhoy'} , {SaS} ). The side of this "wall" which is the bottom of the upper story is the {rav} ; the side which is the top of the lower story is the {rav'eq} (based on {rav} plus {'eq}, an element otherwise unknown [there is no evidence it is connected to {'eq} ]). [[p.10]] {rav} is also used for the floor of a room on ground level (or a basement floor, for that matter), even though there is no corresponding {rav'eq} and no {tlhoy' SaS}. Similarly, though in general {rav'eq} refers to the ceiling of a room that has a room above it, it may also be used for the ceiling of a room on the top floor, even though there is no corresponding {rav} and no {tlhoy' SaS}. On occasion, though, the ceiling of the top floor is called {pa' beb}, literally (from {pa'} plus {beb} ). The term {beb} refers to the covering on top of a structure. ------------------- Actually, there are several ways to ask "What time is it?" in Klingon. Here are a couple. In dealing with time in interplanetary communication, Klingons have come to use the 24- hour system favored by the Federation. There are 24 hours in a day (meaning 24 Earth hours in an Earth day), numbered one through 24. For example: {tera' rep wa'} Earth hour one or one o'clock {tera' rep cha'maH} Earth hour 20 or 20 o'clock or eight o'clock p.m. {tera' rep loS wejmaH} Earth hour 4:30 If the context is clear, the word {tera'} may be left out: {rep cha'maH} 20 o'clock, eight o'clock p.m. When working within this system, one doesn't inquire as to the time; one demands that the number of the current hour be specified. Thus, the equivalent expression to 'What time is it?" is a command: {rep yIper!} Ascertain the hour! Specify the hour! This is literally "Label the hour! Though the verb per