tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 03 00:39:16 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: New Words - magic, magician
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: New Words - magic, magician
- Date: Mon, 3 Mar 97 07:45:34 UT
jatlh Jim LeMaster:
> > > chambe'cham = magic (no-technology technology)
> > >
> > > chambe'chamwI' = magician (no-technology technician)
> > >
> > > I realize from the notes this morning that the absolutely correct form
> > > of no-technology could be chamHa', but, again, I am exterpolating from
> > > chamwI' (technician - one who does technology) that cham is actually a
> > > verb-form, making the correct form chambe' for no-technology or
> > > technology-not.
> >
> > No way. You can't do this. {chamwI'} is a noun, but there's no verb
{cham}.
> > You cannot extrapolate like this. If anyone could make up words like
this,
> > pretty soon no one would be able to understand anyone else. I, for one,
would
> > have no clue about what {chambe'cham} was supposed to mean.
>
> I am sorry, but beginner or not, I do NOT see where you are coming from
> here! There is a known word "technician" but no real word for
> "technology". A noun is often made (most often made) from taking the
> verb or noun form and adding -wI' (one who does/uses X).
Incorrect. The {-wI'} suffix DOES mean "one who does/one who is," but it does
NOT mean "one who uses." It even seems to make sense, but it's just not the
case.
Words like {De'wI'}, {jonwI'}, and {chamwI'} just have to be accepted as nouns
which are inviolate. Perhaps they have a derivation in the Old Klingon of
long ago, but those forms are long forgotten. Correct, modern Klingon has no
known noun suffix {-wI'} meaning "one who uses." And if you decide to make
one up, then how do you expect to ever communicate with anyone? I certainly
wouldn't understand what you were saying.
> With a
> new/growing language, the only ways to produce new words are:(1) make
> them up of whole cloth;
Only Okrand can do this. If anyone else could, the language would suddenly
splinter into a hundred mutually unintelligible dialects, and no one would be
able to use it anymore. It'd die.
> (2) combine known to form new {i.e. the way that
> modern German does};
Just because it happens in German doesn't mean it must happen in Klingon. And
Klingon DOES have ways to form new, never before seen words: adding suffixes.
> and (3) to take a known and extrapolate from it.
The same problem as in (1). What makes you think I'm going to agree with your
extrapolation? What makes you think I would even understand it? The ONLY
reason I understood your {chambe'cham} word was because you explained it to me
in English. If you cannot tell me something in Klingon such that I
understand, then you're not communicating.
> I do NOT see that I broke any grammarian rules. I would bow to greater
> knowledge/or wholesale opinion about my theory that "cham" was either a
> noun or verb, but not that I "broke the rules" in its creation!
If you like, I can get ~mark to tell you it's not a word. Where in TKD do you
find anything to suggest that you can just break things apart like that? Even
Okrand rarely makes new forms, and he's got the RIGHT to make new forms.
The challenge here is not to make the language better, it's to be able to
communicate any concept you want in it. I can assure you, Klingon can handle
most concepts already. There are a few flaws and gaps, but that's why Okrand
does things like publish new books and post to MSN (when his computer is
working). Sooner or later we may get a word for "table," but I'm not going to
be the one to suppose that I can make it up. I can't.
> > > I also toyed with the idea of Clarke's Theorem (Any technology,
> > > sufficiantly advanced becomes indistinguishable from magic) and use
> > > cham'Itlh for magic and cham'Itlhwi' for magician, but I like the sound
> > > of chambe'cham and chambe'chamwI' better. They sound like magic
> > > incantations already.
> >
> > Now you're not only pulling apart word elements illegally, you're also
making
> > a verb compound, which is not permitted either.
> ---see aboove for my opinion on "pulling apart word elements illegally."
> ????? Why are compound verbs illegal? My TKD, though not memorized,
> doesn't seem to support this allegation!
It CERTAINLY doesn't support the creation of verb compounds, does it? Why is
there an entire section devoted to how to make noun compounds, but not one for
verbs?
Finding what seem to be compound verbs in the vocabulary is not good enough.
For all we know, these words were the product of language evolution. The rule
we must all live by is, "Only Okrand can compound verbs." Live with it like a
Klingon!
> > "Magic" is one of those words which we have no good translation for. Who
> > knows? Maybe Klingons never believed in magic? They did kill their gods
off,
> > after all . . . This might explain why there are no words for it. Then
> > again, it's possible that the research just hasn't uncovered this concept
yet.
> To this is say - MY RESEARCH HAS UNCOVERED SEVERAL POSSIBLITIES!
> Just the speeches about "crossing the River of Blood" hints at a whole
> rich tapestry of Klingon myth, legend and 'superstition' not touched
> upon at this time.
I don't see what crossing the River of Blood has to do with magic. There can
be myths and legends without magic. The most "magical" feat I can think of
right now is Kahless forging his {betleH}, and that's not even strictly
magical; something impossible is not described, only something greatly
exaggerated.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97169.9