tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Oct 09 21:04:58 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: jInajpu'

peHruS writes:
>"word arrangement" 'oH mu' {mu'morgh}'e'

nuqjatlh?  nuqjatlh jay'?

>pIj mu' pImDaq mu' {morgh} lo' paq TKD
>mu'meyvetlh wa' 'ay' vIlelta' 'ej vIlo'choHta'

jIyajbe'chu'.
"The book TKD often uses the word {morgh} in a different word."

"often"?!  I find three occurrences of the *syllable* {morgh}:
{may'morgh} "battle array", {rejmorgh} "worrywart" and {morgh} "protest".
"Battle array" is clothing.  "Worrywart" is a person.  "Protest" is a verb.
>From which of these do you extract the meaning "arrangement"?

>latlh mu'mey chu' 'e' vIchup

wejpuH.  Are you also suggesting we treat {latlh} as a verb, or did you
just goof on this sentence's grammar?  Most of what you propose here is
merely confusing or ambiguous, and there are perfectly reasonable other
ways to say what your proposed words are trying to do.

>roHmey = vestiges, traces, footprints (n)

That's a pretty far reach from {yInroH}.  (I'd expect a putative noun {roH}
to mean something more like "signs, indications".)

>cho' = next, subsequent (sv)

{cho'} already has meaning as both noun and verb.  Why would you want to
confuse things by giving it another interpretation?  Especially since I
can easily translate "the subsequent captain" as {tlha'bogh HoD}.

>Daj = experiment (v)

The meaning "test inconclusively" is quite specific.  Perhaps some uses
of "experiment" might fit it, but certainly not all.  Your translation
would be an unwarranted expansion of the existing idea.

>chIj = drive (a car, e.g.) (v)

If you said "navigate a car" I would understand it, but I would infer an
emphasis on determining the course.  (That is, of course, if there were
a simple word for "car"...)

>jep = be halfway through, be at the midpoint (v)

{ramjep} is a noun.  You're compounding your transgressions by pretending
it's a noun-verb combination before taking it apart.

>juptuy = friendship (n)

{HI'tuy} is the *only* occurence of the syllable {tuy} in the lexicon.
I refuse to extrapolate from a single example.

>QeDmey = curricula [qunQeD, mI'QeD, chutQeD, wIchQeD, etc.] (n)

With the exception of {wIchQeD}, these all make reasonable sense without
having to invoke a new interpretation of {QeD}.  But what am I supposed
to understand the oxymoronic "myth-science" to mean?

>Dogh = extraneous, not of intrinsic use (sv)

This idea is conveyed both by {lI'be'} and by the recently revealed noun
{tu'HomI'raH}.  Why would you suggest another meaning for the verb {Dogh}?

>veH = partition, wall; veHHom = fence (n)

These are very unobvious extrapolations; {veHHom} in particular appears
to depend on an understanding of {veH} as a floor-to-ceiling partition.

>-vI' = decimal-type accumulator factor (suffix)

Aside from this being another one of the single-example extrapolations,
we actually have canon that contradicts it:  {cha'maH vagh vatlhvI' Hong}
for "one quarter impulse power".

>luQ = straight (sv)

I don't have a clue as to what reasoning brought *this* suggestion.

>peH = includes (v)
>ruS = bond, bonding (n)

We've been through *these* before; each syllable occurs exactly once
in the lexicon, and the ritual nature of what they refer to makes it
less likely that they have a separable literal meaning.  For example,
{nenghep} and {nentay} suggest a possible noun {nen} "ascension",
whatever that is; from TKW we know that there is a verb {nen} which
actually indicates something like maturity.

>peHruS
>
>Alright, except for {chIj} = "drive" (v), these words are extractions and
>rearrangements thereafter.  Not one of them has canon base, yet.  My
>challenge is:  in 1878 the Hebrew language began its resuscitation; its
>dictionary was a thick pamphlet; look at the size of a Hebrew dictionary now.
> Will tlhIngan Hol grow?

I believe that's a faulty analogy.  While the 1878 Hebrew dictionary might
have been comparitively small, it didn't *define* the language.  Hebrew had
widely-used vocabulary that wasn't represented in that "pamphlet".  While
we often play within the fantasy that tlhIngan Hol is a living language
and we have limited knowledge of it, in reality what we have is all there
is.

>While I tacitly agree that only Marc Okrand has the right to coin new words,
>I would like to see KLI, for example, analyzing the language in the manner I
>have done above and "suggesting".

You have "suggested" unnecessary vocabulary.  Until you have something to
say, a word for "friendship" is not important.  Unless you're translating
from a language that *does* have such a word, you're not likely to want it
anyway.

>We could then get the final word from MO
>as to how close we have come to the bullseye.

In the final analysis, then, any such "suggestions" would be rendered moot.
Why waste the effort?

>(NOTE:  yesh lelashon 'ivrit "chet".)

Whatever.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level