tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 16 07:46:03 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Problem Words
On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:29:18 -0800 (PST) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ja' charghwI':
> >Hong boq chuyDaH: loS
> >Impulse Fusion Thrusters - 4
> >
> >We already have {boq} and its definition does not include
> >"fusion".
>
> No? "Coalition" sounds very much like things coming together. :-)
You are the second person to completely miss my point. When we
assign a name to a noun, our assignment can always be arbitrary.
We have a collection of things to which we assign the word
"fusion". It is a style of music. It is a kind of nuclear
reaction. It is a kind of cannon in Descent II that takes a
couple seconds to go off and then throws your ship backwards
while releasing a purple flash (impressive, but rarely useful).
Meanwhile, we have a different set of things we arbitrarily
assign the word "coalition". These two sets of things
(coalitions and fusions) are not generally considered to have an
intersection. Maybe the word {boq} covers all cases of things we
would call "fusion" and all things we would call "coalition", or
maybe the Klingons see this impulse device and consider it a
coalition while English speakers consider it "fusion". Maybe for
all other "fusion" concepts, Klingons would use a different word.
I mean, maybe English speakers are naming it after what it does
while Klingons are naming it after who built it. Perhaps a
coalition of engineers invented the thing, so Klingons call it
the "coalition" thrusters, and maybe there are several different
kinds of coalition thrusters, so to differentiate, they call
these "Impulse" coalition thrusters.
Or maybe the engineers who designed these thrusters were
specialists in impulse design, so the name of their organization
is "Impulse Coalition" and these are the Impulse Coalition's
Thrusters. See?
It just seems presumptive to see the word {boq} in this name for
this device and assume that we know how the word is being used,
so we can plug and play. Whenever we see "Fusion", we can
replace it with {boq}. I just don't like it. I've gone along
with it for the New Word List, but it leaves a bad taste in my
mouth.
> > So, does this word also mean "fusion", or is it just
> >the middle word one uses when one refers to Impulse Fusion
> >Thrusters? I mean, why did we pick the word "fusion" in English?
> >It was arbitrary.
>
> Arbitrary? Not in the least! Nuclear fusion refers to atomic
> nuclei coming together and sticking. The word was chosen because
> "fusion" means merging separate things into a combined whole.
See my explanation above. You've made an intuitive leap, and as
a song I heard on the radio on the way in this morning put it,
"Maybe this is why nobody talks about men's intuition."
> >But would a Klingon always use the word {boq}
> >where we'd use the word "fusion"?
>
> Based on the meaning of the words, I'd expect that {boq} indeed
> is used when referring to nuclear fusion. I'd also expect that
> it's used for other kinds of fusion. (I would *not* expect it to
> refer to the process of melting from applied heat, which is also
> called "fusion" on occasion.)
My, how arbitrary of you. And you do it with such certainty. You
get a lot of mileage out of very little evidence.
> >Also, is the word {chuyDaH} an implied plural? If so, what
> >happens when we count four of them? Could it then take a plural
> >suffix? Should it then be treated as grammatically plural?
> >According to TKD, pages 23-24, the answer is "no". It is
> >explicitly stated that {chuyDaH} is treated as singular even
> >though it refers to multiple {vIj}. So, what happens when you
> >say {loS chuyDaH}? loS chuyDaH wItoghchugh... It looks pretty
> >weird where I'm sitting. I want to see {loS X DItoghchugh...}. I
> >guess I need to adjust my reflexes to suit the rules.
>
> I don't see a problem here at all. A {chuyDaH} is a collection of
> thrusters. Four of them would be...four collections of thrusters.
> Putting a plural suffix on {chuyDaH} might not *have* to carry a
> "scattered" implication; it just means that the thrusters being
> counted don't all act in concert the way a "thruster bank" does.
In English, while people generally misuse the term "battery", if
used according to the way God made the word, two batteries
should instead be referred to as one battery, just perhaps twice
as big as the "single" battery because a battery is, by
definition, a collection, and two of them just makes one bigger
collection.
Similarly, if you have 64MB to your system RAM, you don't get
two system RAMs. You just get one bigger collection of system
RAM.
Okrand never said that adding {-mey} to {chuyDaH} would refer to
"scattered all about". He said that adding {-mey} to {vIj} meant
"scattered all about". He didn't mention adding {-mey} to
{chuyDaH} AT ALL. So far as the rules go for plurals, there is
NEVER a time when you add a plural suffix to {chuyDaH}. It is
already plural. It doesn't get MORE plural as you add more of
them. It just stays grammatically singular, with a plural
meaning.
Read the book.
[Okay. I'm pausing. Breathe slowly.]
You speak as if you are completely confident that there is no
problem here. Meanwhile, by making this statement, you are
creating grammar Okrand never alluded to. Unless Okrand expands
on an explanation somewhere, you should never see the words
{Hochmey, chuyDaHmey, chamey} etc. They never get plural
suffixes.
Upon further reflection, do you choose to disagree with this
observation? If so, please point out either the section of TKD
that I missed or the canon example which shows my observation to
be incorrect. I point you to the section on plurals to show you
that your statement about adding {-mey} to {chuyDaH} has
anything to do with being scattered all about, and I suggest
that your inaccuracy extends far beyond that most obvious one.
> >muDDaq 'eDSeHcha lulaQlu'bogh: jav
> >Atmosperic Take-Off/Landing Thrusters - 6
> >
> >Note that this is NOT a plural form (as I noted earlier) because
> >of the {lu-}. If it were like {chuyDaH}, there would be no {lu-}.
>
> I'm tempted to call these "altitude-control thrusters". :)
Cute. When you are outside of the atmosphere, altitude is not an
issue.
> >37. telDaq wovmoHwI'mey
> > Wing Lights
> >
> >The Cat In The Hat returns. Note the locative with no verb,
> >unless you think you can nominalize a whole CLAUSE with {wI'}. I
> >don't think so. That, or he spaced out and forgot the {lujomlu'}
> >which he used earlier for the disruptor cannons.
>
> This one disturbs me. I can rationalize it away by pretending it
> means "wing-location lighteners", but I really need Okrand to hit
> me with an annoy stick and explicitly say a locative like this is
> okay before I'll accept it.
I'm with you on this one. It is ugly. I think it is just
careless, and I suspect his explanation will be that this is an
abridged term which previously included a verb.
> >And I wonder what a researcher says when she discovers something
> >really interesting...
>
> I'll bet she gets all fired up about it.
Ouch.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI'