tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 22 18:48:06 2008
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: cha' Hol ngeb mu'ghommey Daj vItu'pu'!
One thing to keep in mind during the "Is it okay to build our own
compound nouns?" argument that is often repeated and never resolved:
Romanized tlhIngan Hol is not the written language of Klingons. It is
a phonetic notation of what a Klingon says out loud. When you say {paq
po'} it sounds a lot like {paqpo'}. In fact, depending on your timing
and emphasis, it sounds EXACTLY the same.
So, one sound can be notated phonetically two different ways. Imagine
that. The blank space, inserted or deleted doesn't really change the
way you say it, and we are only writing down what you are saying,
phonetically.
So, please don't get too attached to seeing something like this
written as one word or two. I prefer two, myself, unless I know that a
one-word version exists in canon, given the warning in TKD against
coining your own compound nouns, but that's just my personal
preference. If I say {paq po'}, don't try to convince me that I'm
wrong, okay. It won't work. You're wasting your time.
It seems like people are trying to cement a specific meaning to
{paqpo'} by making it one word instead of describing the person with a
somewhat more vague {paq po'}, but the simple truth is, Klingon
doesn't have a word for "librarian" or "library" or "umbrella". You
can describe these things in Klingon, but you can't name them, any
more than you can name a dragonfly or a snapping turtle, or a birch
tree. Or a jeep. Or a flying buttress.
Or a shingle, or a pipe wrench or a mortise and tenon joint, or a
fuzzy dice or sushi or an iPod or a rubber band (though we do have
"paper clip") or headphones or stereo amplifier or a posi-traction
differential or an ottoman or a doorknob (or a handle of any kind, for
that matter), or a bicycle or a trapeze or a tea cozy or a hat. Not a
helmet. A HAT.
Get used to it. Deal.
pItlh.
Doq
On Apr 22, 2008, at 3:23 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
> Voragh:
>>>>> *{paqpo'} "librarian"?
>
> SuStel:
>>>> Ouch! No. Conceivably {paq pIn}, but more likely {paq vu'wI'}, or
>>>> something along those lines.
>
> Voragh:
>>> I've seen *{paqpo'} used on this list off and on for years. I
>>> didn't coin
>>> it; I found it in my notes when I searched "librarian".
>
> ghunchu'wI':
>> 'oghta' 'Iv? lo'ta' 'Iv? DaHjaj QInlIj vIlaDpa', not vIleghpu' jIH.
>
> jISovbe': "I found it in my notes". pItlh.
>
> SuStel:
>> Are you sure you haven't seen *{pabpo'} for "grammarian"? That was
>> certainly a list invention. I don't remember ever seeing *{paqpo'}
>> before.
>
> I also assume *{pabpo'} was the model for *{paqpo'}, though whose I
> don't know.
>
> Voragh:
>>>>> *{paqtej} "bibliographer"?
>>>>> *{paqSuy} "bookseller"?
>
> SuStel:
>>>> I see no basis on which you can turn these into compound nouns.
>>>> {paq
>>>> tej, paq Suy}. The first one is a little vague as well; "book
>>>> scientist"
>>>> might mean several things.
>
> I see no basis on which we can't. The fact that we have no known
> examples
> in the corpus of these two specific nouns appearing in compounds is
> not
> evidence that they can't be so used.
>
> Voragh:
>>> Not to those of us in the book trade. A librarian is not the same
>> thing as
>>> a bibliographer, who does more than compile bibliographies or
>>> reading
>> lists!
>
> SuStel:
>> I didn't say they were the same thing. I simply said that "book
>> scientist" doesn't automatically say "bibliographer" to me. If you
>> were
>> to use it to describe a bibliographer, I'd understand you, but it'd
>> be
>> in a "We're speaking Klingon, and don't know a lot of specialized
>> jargon" kind of way.
>
> Voragh:
>>> If a *{Holtej} is a someone who studies or practices the academic
>> subject -
>>> or "science" if you prefer to dress it up! - of {HolQeD}
>>> "linguistics",
>>> then a *{paqtej} would be someone who studies or practices the
>>> subject
>>> *{paqQeD} "bibliography" as taught in library schools the world
>>> over. (Whether *{paqQeD} could stretch to mean the same thing as
>>> "library
>>> science" (so-called) is another discussion.)
>
> SuStel:
>> If your basic premise were correct, I would accept *{paqQeD}
>> unhesitatingly. We do have more evidence regarding {QeD} in compound
>> nouns, so I'd have a lot less trouble accepting *{paqQeD} as a
>> well-formed word, regardless of the validity of *{paqtej}.
>
> Okrand writes WRT Klingon science:
>
> Three groups of words in particular are, for the most part,
> unrepresented: scientific terminology [...] Terms associated
> with the various sciences are the subject of a special study,
> and a report is currently being prepared. [TKD 9]
>
> Until that report is ready, we can only look at the known examples
> {HolQeD}
> "linguistics", {nughQeD} "sociology" and {HuchQeD} "economics" -
> though
> Okrand hints that the latter is not exactly kosher:
>
> There is no known non-slang counterpart, though {HuchQeD}
> (literally,
> "money science") is often used for "economics". [KGT 148]
>
> Whether that' because of doubts as to the scientific rigor of the
> field of
> economics, or just the well-known Klingon distaste for anything
> having to
> do with money (i.e. "filthy lucre") is unknown. (Remember Grilka's
> [and
> Gowron's] shock and disgust at discovering her warrior neighbor
> actually
> resorted to financial manipulation to try to seize control of her late
> husband's lands and property in DS9 "House of Quark". IIRC the High
> Council was not amused either.)
>
> {porghQeD} however clearly tips the scales:
>
> Maltz was familiar with the scientific study of bodily functions,
> or {porghQeD}, but he didn't consider himself terribly well versed
> in the field. [HQ 12.4:8]
>
> So *{paqQeD} would be "the scientific study of books", i.e. the
> field of
> bibliography. Now whether "scientific study" means the same thing as
> "academic study" is another matter. <g>
>
>
>
> --
> Voragh
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
>
>
>