tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 21 17:33:28 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: pab mu'mey
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: pab mu'mey
- Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 17:30:41 -0700
At 11:56 98-04-21 -0700, charghwI' wrote:
}According to Steven Boozer:
}>
}> : <<chuvmey>> bolIjlaw'. Okrand tells us that Klingon linguists
}> : consider there to be three kinds of words: nouns, verbs and
}> : left-overs. He gave us words for all three. You want terms to
}> : classify words into subtypes Klingon linguists apparently do
}> : not consider.
Rather "... that captured Klingon science officers apparently don't consider
at first." I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the empire there is a group of
Klingons that care about the analysis of language, whether for pure academic
interest or from the point of view of devising efficient translation and
code cracking software for use against the enemy. I would be astonished if
they did not have terms that refer to many subclasses of chuvmey, DIpmey,
wotmey and mojaqmey. I don't know whether these would be completely new
words, words for other concepts reapplied for the specific situation (like
"ring" and "field" in pure mathematics in English) or descriptive phrases
like "object of a preposition." I don't see a lot of point in speculating
what the terms might be.
}> The fact that Maltz didn't
}> happen to tell his Federation interrogators the words for "pronoun" and
}> "adverbial" doesn't mean there aren't any, just that they didn't make it
}> into the relatively small vocabulary of tlhIngan Hol words published in what
}> Okrand repeatedly calls only a "sketch" of the grammar. I would be
}> astonished if Klingon grammarians did not have specialized terms for the
}> various chuvmey, not to mention other language-related phenomena. Until we
}> learn what they are, I see nothing wrong in using our own words on this
}> listserv in the interim, so long as we agree amongst ourselves.
I do see something wrong with designating 'understood terminology' for this
group. We too easily forget that we made it up. The illegal compound
{pabpo'} is an example that has insinuated itself into my vocabulary,
because we've informally used it for "grammarian." When talking to
Klingonists who aren't on this list, I have to be careful to remember that
{jabbI'IDghom} is as meaningful to them as "listserver" is to my
non-internet-using mother.
}This is the same argument that can be applied for any
}hind-sight word we want to create. We are not here to build the
}vocabulary beyond Okrand's contributions. We've argued this
}point many times, and likely will continue to do so, but don't
}expect to ever find these "new" words on KLI's "New Words"
}list. This is explicitly not what the KLI and this mailing list
}is about.
Nod.
}And as soon as Okrand publishes something that describes
}pronouns, adverbials, question words and such, differentiating
}them to a greater degree than {chuvmey} does, we'll have those
}words, too. We won't until then. Be satisfied with *pronoun*,
}*adverbial*, etc.
What WOULD be useful is a set of definitions for the English terms we use
when dealing with Klingon grammar. I talk daily about things like SAO,
pronoun as 'to be', N5, verbs of saying, ship in which I fled, and third
person object prefixes. It would be useful to collect and define these
terms, and more, the way we use them. We might have fewer, or at least more
productive arguments if we defined what we meant by our words. No, I don't
volunteer.
}As for different types of nouns, there is no grammatical
}difference between the types you propose, so why should Klingon
}linguists care?
You would be amazed what people who care about a topic can come up with in
the way of differentiation and terms to describe them. Possibly there is a
Klingon term that refers only to root words of the cvcvc pattern, when the
final c is a stop.
}> Maltz was, I believe, a science officer so his knowledge of grammatical
}> terminology may be somewhat vague. We need to find a linguist or poet to
}> interrogate. I wonder if Keedera is available?
}
}Whatever.
The lack of a particular word in known canon is not a reason to speculate on
what that word might be, but neither is it a reason to declare that Klingons
do not care and do not have such a word. I think the people who say "we
don't know, but I think it could be something like this" and the people who
say "we don't know, and I think it isn't needed and doesn't exist" should be
able to coexist without conflict, as long as they both remember that the
real answer is "we don't know."
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian