tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 27 16:42:57 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: bIjatlh 'e' yImev

Thanks to Wm Martin for the reply.

This is about the third time you have directly attacked me while under the
pretense of attacking my learning of the Klingon language.  If you think that
such divisiveness is against the good will of this list serv, then please
take note of your own psychotic behavior and adjust yourself accordingly.
 You are the same person who has said that TKD's appendix is an erroneous
afterthought of Marc Okrand and therefore unreliable.

As to your replying without TKD at hand, I have made specific references to
page numbers and section numbers.  Please be so kind from now on to have TKD
and/or other references at hand when replying not only to my postings, but to
anyone's.  Thank you.

My aim is to learn the Klingon language to the very best level I can attain.
 To that end I propose questions and debate on this list serv.  To date, I
have disclaimed authority on all postings.

As to credentials, I must agree wholeheartedly with you.  Numerous persons
involved in this study are extremely erudite.  I have never said I was better
than any of them; I do list a FEW of my credentials in order to prove that I
have a feeling for language study and analysis.  Next:  I have been studying
Klingon long for over one year before joining this list serv.  What I was
doing in the <bIjatlh 'e' yImev> posting was pointing out how HUMANS develop
relatively simple ways of saying everything.  I was giving Klingons credit
for being intelligent and think that there are yet aspects of their language
they have developed in simple forms but we Terrans have not conclusively
analyzed.  Yes, I do hope we can discover ways to have a common understanding
of the Klingon language without such contortions as I have winced at seeing.
 TKD does not seem so complex to me.

Finally, Klingon is a language more than a devised toy.  Hayakawa's
definition of language is "...spoken by one or more persons with
understanding of the concepts attempting to be conveyed by one or more other
persons."  Erin Asai states that language translation must not be forced, but
must be idiomatic, i.e. one must translate by "feeling" the language.  I am
rather confident of my feelings regarding adjective-noun parausage.  I still
contend that <mach puq> means "The child is little" and <lang puq mach> means
"The little child is slender" through the "feeling" that <puq mach> is not
only a noun modified by stative verb-adjective following it, but is a
noun-noun construct meaning "the little[ness] of the child."  Still, one
definitely must NOT translate <lang puq mach> as "The littleness of the child
is slender."

Back to archive top level