tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Apr 15 16:44:42 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Why we can use words that it'd take klingons 5 minutes to understand.
- From: "QeS 'utlh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Why we can use words that it'd take klingons 5 minutes to understand.
- Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 09:44:29 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' Shane MiQogh, ja':
>To be completely above the water, is to be flying in the air. Even a boat
>is
>under the water...
In these formations, "the water" is being treated as a two-dimensional
surface, which is why a submarine is called a submarine (= "under the sea")
and not an "en-marine" (= "in the sea"). In a properly functioning (i.e. not
sinking), normal boat, no point on the boat has water immediately above it.
Every point on the boat is over the water that's immediately under it, and
that justifies it being called a "supermarine" as well.
And the flying boat from Final Fantasy, I think, would just be called a
{puvlaHbogh bIQ Duj} or a "flying boat"; "supermarine" implies it can only
travel above the water, not above the land as well (and IIRC the flying boat
in Final Fantasy *can* travel above the land). So why not call it an "air
ship" or "flying boat", which are not only more accurate but also shorter?
>And as i said before, dishate only sounds weird cause we don't use it. Who
>says a klingon dosn't deal with muSHa'?
Ah, I think I see where we're getting confused here. I have no problem with
{muSHa'} *in Klingon*. I've used it plenty of times, and I'll happily use it
again. What I have the problem with is the English translation "dishate". In
all my previous messages on this topic, when I've said "dishate", I have
been referring only to the English word. If I had meant the Klingon word
{muSHa'}, I would have said {muSHa'}.
>Closest isn't it... The old phrase comes to mind "So close, yet so far."
Yes, but it's the closest we've got, isn't it?
>It's not our goal. Our goal is to get as close to a klingon as possible,
>but we don't have a klingon.
That's right, and as a result, we have to treat the canon database as though
it were a database of actual utterances. In that sense, we are limited; it's
like re-learning an extinct or almost extinct language from books rather
than from native speakers. Beyond that, we have to be cautious, and use our
intuition: we have to ask ourselves "Is this how a Klingon would say it?"
From canon, we get not only sentence patterns, but also more overarching
stylistic tendencies: for instance, the use of repetition in Klingon. It's
these stylistic tendencies that give us our intuition as to whether
something is *likely* to be right or not. We can't say conclusively and
absolutely whether a sentence is correct if it isn't taken verbatim from
canon; however, we can certainly say things and say "I think this is how a
Klingon would say it", and be able to back it up with either explicit or
implied principles from canon.
>That's the problem, so our new goal in effect would be to see how
>much of the language we can use ourselves. this is a language of
>communication, but limiting ourselves to what might or might not be
>understood is limiting what messages we can convey.
The problem with that lies in that if we *don't* limit ourselves to what can
be understood, then we start taking too much control over the language. We
have to explain ourselves with every neologism, every new turn of phrase,
every new metaphor or idiom. If you have to do this, you may as well not be
using Klingon. While canon has its limits, the benefit of using it as a
guide is that everyone's starting off on a level playing field.
>We forget that some people convey certain words differently. Even
>in english really dislike would mean more or less to one person than
>another. In effect, natrually to most people, like alot (parHa'qu') and
>love (muSHa') are 2 different things.
Well, you've just demonstrated that they're two different things in Klingon
too.
>Supposedly, that's based on insults. I don't see how muSHa' would
>be insulting... Some may not even be taboos, we don't even know.
>We're judging before proven guilty shall i phrase it.
jIjatlhqa': jIHvaD qay'be'qu' tlhIngan Hol mu' {muSHa'}. jIHvaD qay' DIvI'
Hol mu' "dishate". DIvI' Hol mu''e' motlhHa'.
>Indeed, that's why it would be proper in klingon, but not english.
Just because a word is not found in a dictionary doesn't make it improper.
Some of the most interesting constructions in English are colloquialisms.
And I retract my previous statement that Klingon doesn't appear to have
reduplication, in view of the construction {beyHom bey bey'a'} found on one
of the Skybox cards (which one escapes me at the moment), which may be a
form of reduplication.
QeS 'utlh
tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pabpo' / Grammarian of the Klingon Language Institute
not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
- Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh
_________________________________________________________________
Win 1000s of music downloads and Party MeeGos instantly. Play now!
http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=689&referral=hotmailtagline&URL=http://partyfever.ninemsn.com.au/compintro.aspx?compid=209