tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 18 06:54:11 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: thursday:today
- From: "Dr. Lawrence M. Schoen" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: thursday:today
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 06:54:11 -0700
Will wrote:
>
> jIQoch. lugh ~mark. bIQaghpu'. <ghaH> poQbe'lu', 'ach
> <ghaH'e'> poQbe'bejlu'.
But which part do you disagree with?
I think we're all in agreement that <ghaH> wasn't "required" at all, though I
hope we're also all in agreement that it helps disambiguate this sentence from
the larger context of the post as a whole, likewise the use of -'e' for
topicalization. Or is this the part that you believe I am mistaken about?
One area which I think has received very little attention (for obvious reasons)
is that any language, not simply Klingon, can and should be analyzed at several
levels. We've become pretty good at looking at Klingon at the "word" level, and
indeed, most of what we do is at that level. We're getting better understanding
the language at the "sentence" or "phrase" level, and as we gather more
canonical sentences from sources like THE KLINGON WAY this should only improve.
But language also needs to be studied at a still larger level, the level of
extended discourse. How do the sentence fit together, issues like cohesion and
reference, maintaining topic between conversants, and a general appreciation for
context at a higher level.
I'm not trying to "bullshit" my way out of a corner, but I am asking you to look
at the whole picture.
Of course, I still could be mistaken. ;)
Lawrence
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Dr Lawrence M Schoen, Director :: The KLI is a nonprofit ::
:: The Klingon Language Institute :: tax exempt corporation ::
:: POB 634, Flourtown, PA 19031 USA :: DaH HuchlIj'e' ghonob ::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: [email protected] :: http://www.kli.org :: 215/836-4955 ::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::