tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 08 08:27:29 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: TKD3 & other expansions w...
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: TKD3 & other expansions w...
- Date: Sun, 8 Jan 1995 11:27:07 -0500
>I have also heard that one of the contributing factors to Esperanto's
>success is that Dr. Zamenhof relinquished all legal ownership of the
>language just after he published it. Therefore, as the need for new
>vocabulary and scientific terms arose, new words could be created by
>the consensus of international committees.
I'm not as read up on Esp history as perhaps I'd like to be, but if it was
the case that Zamenhof let his creation loose to public domain, I'm wondering
what central power maintained a unity of the language, ie, what kept it from
diverging into numerous idiodialects. This would be likely to happen because
one person may devise a word or construction for something, and another may
devise another for the same thing. Such a process may be even more disastrous
among Klingonists if there are those who want to devise new grammar.
My contention is that it is pointless to try to fit Klingon into a more
English-mold, yet that is exactly what many are trying to do: For example,
why is {tlhej} not suitable as a verb to express "together with" simply
because the same concept is expressed by a preposition in English. We don't
need to make it syntactically the same as English, as it would basically be
if it were a postposition.
Other problems include Proechel's wanting to use any verb whatsoever with the
suffix {-laH} to be an adjectival, because he contends that Okrand translated
it as "able", an English adjective. He has a point, tho following that
direction will lead to numerous problems and ambiguities.
Klingon has its own feel that you just have to gain only by using the
language correctly, and the only correct way to use it is to follow Okrand's
description of it. Those who follow Okrand will be understood. Others will
experience difficulty being understood.
Maybe I believe that because {je} is used adverbially following a verb to
mean "also" that the word {ghap} could be used in the same syntactic position
to express "otherwise", tho I must expect to experience trouble making myself
understood well if I do that, at least until Okrand gives the word.
The point of studying and using a language is to be mutually intelligible. I
suspect many people's outlook on the language is closer to that of a
linguistic toy, however. Of course, more could probably be learned by facing
up to the challenge of working with Klingon grammar the way it is. Just
because you may not immediately be able to come up with a way to express
something in Klingon using canonical grammar and vocab does not at all mean
that such a thing is impossible to express. It just means that the way to
express it is so different from English, and you may have to struggle a bit.
But in the end struggling can only serve to make you stronger.
vaj tlhIngan Hol yIlo'chu'.
>yoDtargh
Guido