tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 26 20:27:21 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: RE: RE: An offer you shouldn't refuse!
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: RE: RE: RE: An offer you shouldn't refuse!
- Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 22:32:24 -0500
["{puqnI'} is clearly *grandchild*..."]
Kenneth Traft writes:
>Actually I think the "grand child" angle is quite good...
Since we have {be'nI'} for "sister" and {loDnI'} for "brother", I'd be a
lot more inclined to think {*puqnI'} might be "sibling". When we take
into account {vavnI'} "grandfather" and {SoSnI'} "grandmother", we lose
any straightforwardly extensible interpretation of {-nI'}.
That's the whole problem with trying to deduce meanings of parts of words
that haven't been clearly identified in canon. Some people interpret them
one way, others interpret them another. I once proposed that {*wejHa'} is
"yet, still"; others saw it as "yet, already". The "obvious" meaning to
*me* wasn't universally obvious.
>...On this list I've argued for (and been "chastened"
>for) taking such liberties myself. I believe that, even though the TKD only
>gives a few examples, it invites us to make use of the language:
>
> "It is not possible, in a brief guide
> such as this, to describe the grammar of
> Klingon completely. What follows is only
> a sketch or outline of Klingon grammar.
> Although a good many of the fine points are
> not covered, the sketch will allow the
> student of Klingon to figure out what a
> Klingon is saying and to respond in an
> intelligible, though somewhat brutish, manner.
> Most Klingons will never know the difference."
> Page 18 of The Klingon Dictionary.
Certainly the grammar given in TKD is incomplete. Certainly we are
invited to use the language as given. We are told that if we follow
the rules in TKD, we will be understood.
Meanwhile, if we make up new rules to cover instances *not* explained
in TKD, we are not guaranteed to be understood. Our best course of
action, I believe, is to avoid trying to say things in a way that is
not explained or given as an example. Sentences as subjects aren't
*quite* forbidden, but we're never told how we would use one as such.
There's no grammatical tool to turn verbs into "manner" adverbs. We
don't yet know exactly how to say "another book", or even if such a
phrase is even legal in tlhIngan Hol. And so on.
>>>It's perhaps worse because the "new vocabulary" proposed is completely
>>>unnecessary.
>
>Glen isn't the only one who can be dogmatic (as I've seen over and over again
>on this list). Trying to constantly "explain" Terran words with "phrases"
>gets really tedious and verbose.
I agree, it gets verbose. If you must use "Terran" concepts, you'll have
to deal with the occasional lack of a simple Klingon word. It works both
ways, though; I recently used the word {ghIQHa'}, which gets quite a bit
more verbose in English. It all depends on which language you're using to
*create* the words. If you want to translate something from *any* language
into any other, you run into this problem.
>If a Klingon sees a common word with a
>suffix such as <-nI'> behind it, a commonality to the word he knows should
>seem make sense.
Which commonality are you invoking here? The two different meanings of
the putative {*-nI'} suffix aren't even common between one another, so far
as I can see.
>VERBOSE doesn't seem to be the Klingon way as we can see
>with the use of Clipped Klingon in everyday use, not just in Military
>situations. Even using <-ghach> on a bare stem is not "forbidden" just
>"marked".
Which means that it doesn't quite violate the grammatical rules; it just
follows them into a place they don't normally go. We've got the same
type of not-quite-forbidden-but-highly-marked usages in English:
"*liftation" or "*silentness", for example.
>I really question the validity of the strictness placed on Klingon
>speakers. I love the intellectual banter and I'm learning much, but I'm
>afraid I'll never make the KLI grades.
The "strictness" I tend to place is of basically one sort: don't make up
grammar. You can try to *deduce* unexplained grammar from examples if you
want, but you should not try to *extend* it. If you want to use the language
that Marc Okrand calls {tlhIngan Hol}, you should play by *his* rules.
[on using any verb as a noun and vice versa]
>Yes, but it just seems soooooooo KLINGON!
I emphatically disagree. Using a verb as a *verb* instead of forcing it
into service as a noun (the way English so often does) seems more the
Klingon way.
>William H. Martin also wrote:
>>That has been my argument with Glen all along. Every single
>>interpretation I've seen come from him has the single
>>priority of making it easier to translate English sentences
>>into Klingon.
>
>I'm really not being sarcastic, but it just seems soooooooo KLINGON!
If you're not being sarcastic here, I'm very confused. Making Klingon
more like English seems "soooooooo KLINGON" to you? Please explain.
>I could not care less if a particular English sentence is
>difficult to translate into English. I want Klingon to have
>the power to beautifully express meaning.
>
>I'd rather not touch this.
Except "this" is at the core of the debate! By force-fitting English ways
of expressing things onto the skeleton of Klingon grammar, one loses that
"power to beautifully express meaning". You have said you hate Shakespeare.
I suppose that you don't think the English _Hamlet_ "beautifully expresses
meaning", and thus you don't recognize the remarkably parallel expression in
the Klingon version as doing so either. It's my opinion that this is *your*
loss.
Read the stories in <jatmey>. Meaning is "beautifully expressed" on several
occasions there. :-/ The expression is often at its *best* when it doesn't
have a simple parallel in English grammar.
>I want to see more stuff and while I was impressed with the KLI Hamlet it
>wasn't perfect and too "artsy" oriented for me. I really don't think it
>warrented that extra two years.
You're entitled to your own tastes, of course. I guess Shakespeare isn't
for everyone (but I do think everyone ought to give it a fair chance).
>I'll never be a great Klingon speaker (I'll
>be happy with being fair). I just don't have that kind or time or aptitude
>(or inclination).
I'm truly sorry you don't have the inclination to learn Klingon well. I can
accept the "not enough time" argument, but the "not enough aptitude" doesn't
sit well with me. Klingon is not hard. It's easy. It's basically a "toy"
language -- not that it can't be expressive, but its range of tools is very
limited. Reading and writing simple grammatically correct sentences is not
difficult. *Translating* into Klingon is hard, but translating between *any*
two languages is usually hard!
The challenge of crafting words using a limited range of tools is part of
what makes using tlhIngan Hol a compelling pastime for me.
>I think that Glen's actions in the past were somewhat questionable, but he is
>not malicious. Inept at time over protocal, organization, and manners, but
>not intentionally bad. I did not agree with a few (very few) points of his
>critique of the KLI Hamlet, but the points he brought up on "readibility" are
>valid, despite the focus of the iambic pentameter (which seems strange since
>Klingon is based on "3").
I find the "restored" Hamlet to be *very* readable, with the caveat that I
continually must look up words that I don't yet know on sight. The fifth
or sixth time through a scene, it's as easy for me to read as the English.
(It only takes me two or three times through the English to make it easy.)
And who said Klingon is based on "3"?
Enough.
-- Alan Anderson, professional programmer and amateur Klingonist