tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 01 06:04:25 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: models of excellent language use

Lawrence Schoen ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol ghojwI']

Okay folks, time for an overly long post from your Director. 
There are a number of points here, so I'm goint to bounce around 
a bit. Your indulgence is most appreciated.

ghItlh lay'tel SIvten:
>The attitude of most of the experts on this list seems to be 
>that if it isn't directly from Okrand, it simply isn't worth
>considering.  So instead of studying SeQpIr and ghIlghameS to
>improve our language usage, we study only the paltry samples of
>text from Marc Okrand.

I believe the premise here is false, and that a quick skimming of 
this list's archive, or indeed any of the dozens of Round Table 
distillations which have appeared in HolQeD, will aptly 
demonstrate that quite a bit of Klingon usage and grammar that 
Okrand never put to paper is most definitely under consideration.

Having said that, yes, Okrand's work is the standard and referent 
to which all such discussions are compared. I don't see a problem 
here, though I can see how some might. To these people, let me 
point out that any meaningful discussion requires a frame of 
reference, a base point, a common ground. Okrand's work serves as 
that. How significant you choose to make that in your own mind is 
something else entirely.


ghItlh SuStel:
>Have your posts for the last couple of weeks been trying to 
>annoy people in retaliation for this disappointment? You seem to 
>delight in pointing out problems purely for the purpose of 
>pointing them out.

I understand the intent here. When you've been around on the list 
for a long while, it's easy to become frustrated or irritated 
with what one perceives (real or imagined) as a particular tone 
of posts. However, telling someone else how to post is rarely 
going to produce anything other than a defensive reaction, and 
doing it in public is almost always doomed. I'm not sitting in 
judgment on the correctness of SuStel's perception, but I will 
state that it would have been more effective as a private 
communication off the list. That I am posting such an observation 
in public is not intended to be ironic.


ghItlh SuStel:
>There are two ways the list could have gone about studying 
>Klingon... These two tactics are mutually exclusive, and the 
>first one is the position of the KLI (I've spoken to Lawrence 
>and Mark about it), Okrand (I've seen a screening of the 
>Earthlings movie), and the experts on this list.

I believe this overstates the case somewhat. Moreover, I don't 
see the two positions as being mutually exclusive.

Yes, we appear to maintain the fiction that Klingon is a natural 
language. But the real motivation for this is that what we know 
of the language comes from its creator. Other than Marc Okrand 
not being a native speaker, this situation does not strike me as 
altogether different than learning a language from a single 
native informant. Or perhaps slightly more accurately, learning 
the language from the notes and research conducted by the lone 
linguist with access to that native informant.

I could easily point to dozens of languages that have been 
documented in this way, and if you wanted to study them the only 
materials that exist are from a single source. Granted, the 
linguists responsible for these materials typically had multiple 
informants, not merely one, but the parallel is there and 
sufficient to make the point.

So, the discerning reader will probably note that I seem to be 
agreeing with SuStel's point, that we adhere to interpretation #1 
solely. Let's move beyond it. Although we find it convenient to 
treat Klingon as a natural language as just described, we all 
know different. That's fine for now; the number of really fluent 
speakers is tiny, and even the number of speakers with minimal 
proficiency is still quite low. As that changes, as more people 
acquire the kind of skills so aptly demonstrated by Qov, I have 
no doubt our working model of Klingon will shift as well, and we 
will more actively acknowledge the artificial nature of Klingon, 
and embrace the consequences thereof. 

I just don't think we're there yet.


ghItlh lay'tel SIvten:
>The principal literature in Klingon is NOT being held up as the 
>model to follow.  For that matter, neither is any of the work in 
>"jatmey" or "Qo'noS QonoS". 

I agree with this assessment in part. I think that the reason the 
principle literature available in Klingon is not utilized more 
fully is because it hasn't been read as widely. This is something 
that has troubled me. I can understand part of it. With large 
works like Shakespeare and Gilgamesh, there's something quite 
daunting to overcome. Then too, the style of these works adds 
another level of opacity for most readers. Less clear is why more 
people don't avail themselves of <<jatmey>> or <<Qo'noS QonoS>> 
(though in fairness, it has been some years since we published a 
new issue of the former.

I've tried to tackle this a number of ways. Implementing "story 
time" at the qep'a' has been one such endeavor. The results, 
while enjoyable, have been minimal (though talk of "special 
targs" muttered in falsetto has become something of an "in 
joke").

We tried again with the KLINGON PROJECT POE. The idea here was 
bring in more people, give them shorter works. Short works means 
more accessibility for the readers. More translators means a 
broader range of styles. Much discussion would ensue. Alas, the 
project became mired. We hope to return to it.

The bigger, more ambitious, and I suspect ultimately hugely 
successful, attempt is the current WORLDS OF TRANSLATION project 
now underway. Again, we have short works of fiction. This time 
though, of a more contemporary flavor, and all of them award 
winners by legends in the Science Fiction field. Again we have 
diverse translators (and more are welcome, hint, hint). This is 
where I think you'll see clear differences in usage and form. 
This is going to be the benchmark for the next jump in what we do 
with the language.

Or so I choose to believe. 

But we continue to try new things. The old guard (often 
grudgingly) tries to remember that it IS the old guard, and 
remains open to fresh perspectives from more recent arrivals and 
students to the language. Even so, there's a certain amount of 
intimidation that's going to occur (originating on both sides of 
the divide), and a certain amount of argument too.

I like argument. I like debate. That's why we have this list. But 
I'll qualify the term. Well reasoned argument. Not personal 
attacks, not name-calling, not accusations or insinuations. 

It is one thing to point to another speaker's usage of the 
language and say "I think that's wrong." It is quite a different 
thing to point to the another speaker's usage of the language and 
say "I think YOU're wrong." Burn this distinction into your 
brain. If you see that you've stood on the wrong side of it, post 
your replacement proverb and let's move on. We won't unveil the 
future by wallowing in the past. 

rIn 

LMS

Back to archive top level