tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 16 12:11:01 2008
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: cha' Hol ngeb mu'ghommey Daj vItu'pu'!
- From: Doq <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: cha' Hol ngeb mu'ghommey Daj vItu'pu'!
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:09:51 -0400
- Authentication-results: smtp06.embarq.synacor.com [email protected]; auth=pass (LOGIN)
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; d=embarqmail.com; s=s012408; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; [email protected]; t=1208372992; h=From:Subject:Date:To:Mime-Version:Content-Type; bh=yfA+EkGBvI0HP89mT2eXE3VQ38Q=; b=C2fhbI8y6r9dGisvufEUg56i9xwWWRU9zAErztbdzER4KJUqF51hO4qwlMHYMH5I ck9hVqWW503yOIFJ5jKYsc4d14LgzD40gQaaUztIJeMZBgCRWZtgBdJol3JbV1iE;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
- X_cmae_category: 0,0 Undefined,Undefined
The whole term "artificial language" is strange, since all languages
are artificial in that they are made up by human beings. What we
really mean by the term is that it is a language created by one adult
rather than by a large number of children, as "natural" languages are.
"Constructed" languages fit the same description. The thing that sets
it apart from natural language is the age and number of people who
invent and evolve the language.
Meanwhile, I see "imaginary" language as something quite different. I
think of an imaginary language as a language that does not really
exist. Perhaps the adult who thought it up lacked the time or skill to
make up a whole language, but he did bother to name it and maybe come
up with a few words and a few ideas about grammar to describe the
language and give those who read about it something to, well,
"imagine" in terms of what the language would be like, if someone were
actually able to speak it.
An imaginary language can be thought about, and its few phrases can be
memorized and repeated, but it lacks sufficient vocabulary and grammar
to say much more than the language's inventor has already said. A
constructed language provides the tools to allow others to express new
communication that no one has ever expressed before. For example, I'm
pretty certain that Marc Okrand has never said, {ghItlhwI'mey law'
ngaS HIvje'wIj SuD.} Meanwhile, aside from the vagaries of Klingon's
coloring system, the vast majority of Klingon speakers can figure out
what I just said. I could add more specificity to the color by adding
{bIQ'a' rur HIvje'vam.} You can't come up with many original Elvish
statements that don't already exist in Tolkien canon.
I think of the Tolkien languages as imaginary languages. I mean,
wouldn't it be cool if someone could actually speak the language of
Tolkien's elves? I don't mean just someone who can pronounce the few
words Tolkien wrote in the language or who can go through his notes
and know all the descriptions of the language features and what
natural languages it is based upon, etc. I mean someone who could say,
in the language, "I walked five miles to get here. I'm hungry. Could
you pass me that loaf of bread? And could you pour me some water while
you are at it?" It would be okay to substitute something for "mile" or
"loaf of bread", given that it might not be in the vocabulary, but
certainly any language ought to be able to express something close to
that kind of thing, unless, of course, the language is imaginary,
which is another way of saying "incomplete".
Klingon is not altogether complete, but among languages created and
maintained by a single person, it certainly crosses the threshold from
imaginary to constructed. I'm not sure about "artificial". That's such
a strange term to describe a language.
On Apr 16, 2008, at 2:15 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
> For those compiling a bibliography...
>
> During my work at the University of Chicago Library, I've stumbled
> upon two
> interesting illustrated dictionaries of artificial/imaginary languages
> which, inter alia, discuss Klingon:
>
>
> Paolo Albani and Berlinghiero Buonarroti's _Aga magèra difùra:
> dizionario
> delle lingue immaginarie_. Bologna: Zanichelli, 1994. ("Klingon,
> lingua
> dei" pp. 213-214.)
>
> Tim Conley and Stephen Cain's _Encyclopedia of Fictional and Fantastic
> Languages_. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2006. ("Klingonese"
> and the
> other languages of Star Trek pp. 169-173; article includes a fairly
> complete bibliography.)
>
>
> BTW, have we settled on a term for "artificial/constructed/imaginary
> language" yet? In my notes I have *{Hol ngeb} and *{Hol
> 'oghlu'(pu')bogh},
> the latter used on the KLI website.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Voragh
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
>
>
>