tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 11 06:40:20 2014
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Rant about verbs of motion
On 6/11/2014 7:16 AM, De'vID wrote:
on the assumption that, since both are canonical, then both are
correct
I don't necessarily agree with this assumption.
I prefer to fall back on the idea that most of the materials we have are
written by non-Klingons to teach Klingon, and so the information we get
could be incorrect or incomplete. When we're told that a seemingly
simple thing we've been using, like verbs of motion, are actually more
complicated than we thought, I see this as new information coming to
light, and any old information, including examples, might be in error,
or at least misleading. If we then see even more information suggesting
that the old way was right after all, I see this as introducing an
unexplained subtlety in the rule in which our Federation writers still
hadn't figured out.
So, another example: verbs of speech. We were told how to do it in TKD.
We got an example in Power Klingon of using {tlhob} as a verb of speech.
We also get an example in PK of a tourist apparently using it wrong
(bISaHbe' qatlh bIjatlh?), but we assume that because he's a tourist
they're intentionally giving him poor grammar. Then we're told that only
{jatlh} and {ja'} are verbs of speech. So the old examples are actually
errors that couldn't be detected at the time. Then I think paq'batlh
gives us {tlhob} as a verb of speech again, so now we know that either
{tlhob} actually IS a verb of speech and the interview telling us that
it wasn't was in error, or {tlhob} GENERALLY isn't a verb of speech but
there are certain circumstances when the rules are broken and it becomes
one.
So: later examples are more likely to be correct than earlier examples,
and updated rules are more correct than earlier rules, but aren't a
guarantee that the latest rules are always followed.
Qov needs to strongly remind her students what Okrand says in the
introduction to TKD:
It should be remembered that even though the rules say "always" and
"never," when Klingon is actually spoken these rules are sometimes
broken. What the rules represent, in other words, is what Klingon
grammarians agree on as the "best" Klingon.
There's really nothing else for it. I suspect that Okrand realizes he's
contradicted himself from time to time, and is okay with that on this basis.
Qov wrote:
And you, you reading this, because Marc isn’t, if you interview Marc,
and ask him a question without presenting him with a complete list of
ways he has canonically used a word in the past,
... and without asking him leading questions...
then you are guilty of this too. Is the reason we don’t have more
beginners learning this language that it has turned into an
unknowable morass of bonkers redirection? No, it’s because kids these
days don’t learn things from books. I’m desperately trying to address
this, and becoming increasingly more desperate, as I survey what is
out there as try to come up with something honest, simple and correct
to tell these poor learners about how to use jaH. Or yIt. Or –Daq.
In a natural language, there's no reason for there only to be one
allowed textbook. I see no reason Klingon should be any different. Write
your own complete description of the language, without worrying about
being canonical—that is, don't worry about whether your work is supposed
to be compared with what IS canonical and whether you've accounted for
every canonical sentence. Just write the best description you can, with
the understanding and explicit warning that, as with any language
textbook, there will be exceptions found in the wild that are
unaccounted for.
To summarize: in language, "correct" isn't absolute.
--
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol