tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 25 14:08:41 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Nature phenomenon
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Nature phenomenon
- Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 17:09:34 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 05:13:30 -0800 (PST) Qov <[email protected]>
wrote:
> At 10:37 98-01-23 -0800, charghwI' wrote:
> }According to Qov:
> }>
> }> At 11:11 98-01-22 -0800, you wrote:
> }> }According to Qov:
> }> }..
> }> }> {jev} I believe refers to storm, as in to storm an enemy position, not a
> }> }> nature phenomenon.
> }> }
> }> }I'm curious where you picked that up. I don't see any reference
> }> }to this in any of my word lists.
> }>
> }> Simply because it is a verb. In my idiolect, and in my dictionary "to
> }> storm" is to be violent or angry, to attack in that manner. The noun "storm"
> }> represents a natural phenomenon, but I would never say "it stormed" or "the
> }> weather storms." Always "there was a storm"or "we're experiencing a storm."
> }> Marc Okrand has defined words that are nouns in English and verbs in Klingon
> }> in a way that is consistent with the way English speakers use them, thus
> }> "experience a tremor" not "tremor (v)." I have always considered it wrongly
> }> used to describe weather.
> }
> }I see a difference in "experience a tremor" and "tremor (v)".
> }If I am standing on shaking ground, the ground tremors.
>
> You're making my point for me. "tremor" is not a verb referring to shaking
> ground. Tremor isn't a verb at all in my dictionary.
Get a better dictionary. The Oxford Encyclopedic English
Dictionary says:
*tremor* n. & v. --n. 1 a shaking or quivering. 2 a thrill (of
fear or exultation etc.). 3 (in full *earth tremor*) a slight
earthquake. --v.intr. undergo a tremor or tremors. [ME f. OF
/tremour/ & L /tremor/ f. /tremere/ tremble]
> You're thinking of
> tremble.
No, I was thinking of tremor. They have similarity in that they
both involve a sort of vibration, but when the area of Earth
below me tremors, I tremble. I know the difference between these
words.
> My point here was that things that are a noun concept in English
> but a verb concept in Klingon are translated with vocabulary used the ay
> English speakers use it. He doesn't say "SuD - blue (v)" and leave us to
> shift our concept of blue to verbal.
I know that, but in this case, tremor is a verb. You don't have
to put "be" in front of it or "experience a" in front of it if
you mean "tremor". You are leaning heavily on a very bad example.
> }experience a tremor. I don't think that definition has anything
> }to do with whether English favors the noun or verb. To be fair,
> }you should list the entire definition:
>
> Why?
>
> }Qom - experience an earthquake or tremor (v)
>
> }Meanwhile, {jang} is not defined as "give an answer, give a
> }reply", which is at least as common as "answer, reply (v)".
>
> Huh? Maybe it's because it's 5 am, but I can't see how this one relates.
Well, like "answer" and "reply", "tremor" and "storm" are both
nouns and verbs and if you insist that the definitions of
"storm" and "tremor" should use the words as nouns when defining
the verbs, one would expect him to have to do it to "answer" and
"reply" as well. The fact is, "tremor (v)" exists and it is
fundamentally different from "experience a tremor". "Answer" and
"reply" work fine as verbs and need no reference to their noun
meanings in their verb meaning. Storm, similary exists as a
weather related verb and does not need any special wording to
work as a weather verb.
> }Maybe you have a point and a better example might illuminate
> }it, but I don't think you've accomplished that mission yet. The
> }verb "storm" is just "storm", be it weather or military until
> }we get some better guidance, especially since "rain" and "snow"
> }are verbs in Klingon and not nouns (as they are commonly used
> }in English).
> }
> }"Don't go out in the _____ without your boots."
> }
> }All three weather nouns fit here well in English. In Klingon:
> }___-lu'taHvIS DaSmeylIj DatuqnIS!
> }
> }Those who don't like {-lu'} here, just ignore it.
>
> {jev} is translated as storm (v). The definition of the English verb "to
> storm" does not refer to weather.
Okay. The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary:
*storm* n. & v. [I'll skip the noun definitions which include
both weather and military meanings] --v. 1. /intr./ (often foll.
by /at, away/) talk violently, rage, bluster. 2 /intr./ (us.
foll. by /in, out, of/, etc.) move violently or angrily
(/stormed out of the meeting/). 3 /tr./ attack or capture by
storm. 4. /intr./ (of wind, rain, etc.) rage; be violent.
I'll pass on the half a page of definitions of things like
"storm trooper", etc. The fourth definition looks a lot like a
weather related term to me, very similar to "snow (v)" and "rain
(v)".
> You are arguing that a word should
> represent the verbal equivalent of the English noun that is a homonym with
> the English verb that is its definition.
No. I'm arguing that "storm (v)" means "storm (v)". You are
arguing that the fourth definition listed above doesn't count
because you don't use it that way. You would phrase it
differently and use "storm" as a noun if you were speaking of
weather. Well, other people speak English, too, and their word
choice can differ at times and enough of them use "storm" as a
verb referring to actions of the weather that a rather
authoritative dictionary lists the meaning that way.
Do you argue that your usage of this particular word counts more
than the authors of the OEED?
> That logic is as hairy as that
> sentence. Consider "point" (v) (meaning indicate) and "point" (n)
> (measurement used in scorekeeping). You would not argue that the Klingon
> word for point (v) should also mean "to score a point."
You are exactly right. I wouldn't, simply because that is not
what "point (v)" means. And yes, I DID just look it up to make
sure. Meanwhile, "storm (v)" DOES mean "4. /intr./ (of wind,
rain, etc.) rage; be violent."
I don't maintain five Klingon dictionaries in different formats
because I had a lot of time on my hands. I have an interest in
words, and while I do misuse them now and then, the event tends
to be somewhat rare and in this case, I don't think you've
caught me misusing these words. I think you just have not been
using these words with the full range of their meaning. You've
fallen to a reduced set of idioms, considering them to be the
full range of means of expressing descriptions of the weather.
Chill. You are wrong on this one. Okrand may later explain that
he did indeed mean the military definition, but so far he has
done nothing of the kind, and his handling of "storm" is
EXTREMELY similar to his handling of "rain" and "snow". Most
likely, {jev} was a definition he made up while he was making up
{peD & SIS}. Deal with it.
> The verbs "to rain" and "to snow" are verbs associated with weather in
> English so it's reasonable that {SIS} and {peD} be defined simply as verbs
> meaning rain and now. ***But "to storm" is not in my dictionary or my
> idiolect a verb associated with the weather.***
Like I said, you need a better dictionary. It probably doesn't
even have the F*** word in it. OEED has four verb and two noun
definitions, along with explanations for several idiomatic
usages. In my opinion, any dictionary that doesn't list f*ck is
not truely representing the language as used.
> Therfore I do not believe
> {jev} to be a word associated with the weather. (I am stating this carefully
> in both postings because I believe there are dialects of English in which
> storm is a weather verb).
Well, OEED tends to mark that which is idiomatic to America and
England and "storm (v}" has no such marking. Apparently, it is
used on both sides of the ocean. Whether Canadians use it or not
is perhaps another matter. Dictionaries don't tend to list
definitions like: storm (v) 4. /intr./ (of wind, rain, etc.)
rage; be violent. [EXCEPT IN CANADA, WHERE THEY ONLY USE "STORM"
AS A NOUN WHEN REFERENCING WEATHER ACTIVITY.]
> jevlu'taHvIS jaghpu' DapupmeH DaSmeylIj DaSpu'meylIj je DatuqnISbej.
'ej jevlu'taHvIS yIyIQrup.
> Qov [email protected]
> Beginners' Grammarian
charghwI'