tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 04 20:02:24 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lexicography paper on TKD
At 5:27 PM +0200 7/31/03, C. Krottje wrote:
>Hereby I ask list members to read a paper I have written
>for a lexicography course at my University. The topic: a
>lexicographical approach to a potential yet (still)
>hypothetical revision of the TKD (kliext.ps).
It might help if I knew what a "lexicographical approach" is. I assume
your paper adequately explains it, but I don't have a handy way to read
Postscript right now. Is there enough fancy formatting in the paper to
make a plain text version unusable?
[** later ** I have now obtained the PDF. That's a much better medium for
widespread readability. However, I'm not yet enlightened about what
"lexicographical approach" means. I might have more comments later, or I
might not.]
>When I say "dictionary", I can mean two things. Most of
>the time, I will mean the dictionary-section of the
>present TKD and not the whole book with the name TKD. When
>I say what the dictionary should look like, I'm referring
>to the term dictionary in general, so not "wordlist in the
>TKD" but "revised TKD according to lexicographical
>standards", in this context. The context will usually make
>it quite clear.
I'd suggest finding another term for the larger work. That would help in
two ways. First, it would reduce the burden of context, making things that
much less confusing. More importantly, it would more readily distinguish
between the existing book named "The Klingon Dictionary" and your proposed
"Revised Standard Klingon Dictionary" or whatever.
>Sometimes I ask, claim, or question things at a certain
>point and answer them or devalidate them myself later on.
>I do fully realise that the written form of the language
>as used by the KLI and as used in the TKD is merely
>phonetic, even though my section on compound nouns might
>give the impression that I don't realise that.
I should probably find a way to read the paper before I start questioning
it, shouldn't I? I don't see how there would be a connection between
phonetic transcription and compound nouns.
[** later ** After having read the relevant section, I still don't see a
connection.]
>Some feedback by Will Martin, who also used to be on this
>list, can be found on the same site.
Will's passion for a conservative approach to the language is legendary.
He has been a tremendous stabilizing influence as people try to take ideas
and run with them before learning how to walk. He also can be quite
stubborn when his own preferences are challenged, but he has admitted
defeat on several occasions.
>Qapla' with reading it.
Making it available in a more accessible format would increase our success. ;-)
[** later ** A less "granular" PDF would be better yet.]
I'd like to point out that in this note you've consistently referred to
"the TKD", which I find irritatingly redundant. If you call it that in
your paper as well, you should consider correcting it.
[** later ** Not only does the paper continue this odd "the TKD" practice,
but it extends it to "the TKW" and "the KGT". You should definitely do
something about it.]
-- ghunchu'wI'