tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 21 18:42:53 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
{boq} and "fusion" (was Re: Problem Words)
ja' charghwI':
> >Hong boq chuyDaH: loS
> >Impulse Fusion Thrusters - 4
>
>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"...
>
>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.
Both words refer to things coming together to form a new entity. Why are
you averse to the possibility that {boq}, which means a combination of
separate parts into a unified whole, and which is translated as "fusion"
on the toQDuj poster, might mean "fusion"?
>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.
The device isn't a coalition. The process by which it operates is.
>[snipped lots of possible but unlikely scenarios]
>
>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.
It's not a replacement for the *word* "fusion", of course. But it sure
looks like a valid way to express the ideas of nuclear fusion, political
groups joining forces, musical styles drawn from multiple origins, even
genetically combined offspring of parents from separate species...
>> 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 have an interesting concept of "certainty" -- notice the word "expect"
repeated many times in my paragraph? Again, I don't see anything arbitrary
about referring to things coming together as coalition.
>You get a lot of mileage out of very little evidence.
My evidence, such as it is, includes the similar core meanings of the two
words {boq} and "fusion", and the fact that they are used as translations
of the same idea on a poster with Marc Okrand's name on it.
-- ghunchu'wI'