tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 12 19:44:32 1993

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

this'n'that

charghwI'vo':

>> Another question: Concerning what Qanqor commented about the vaguene
>> of functiolingon question words, i.e., tha'Iv and nuq follow
>> somewhat different rules than other nouns. Well, which of these would
>> seem more appropriate?:
>> 
>> - ghorgh 'oHpu' may'
>> - ghorgh qaSpu' may'
>> 
>> Guido#1 ---

>     My personal vote is heavily toward the latter. It avoids the unnecessary
>issue of just exactly how far you can extend the idea of using pronouns as
>"to be" verbs. This is not a diatribe against "to be". It is just the simple
>statement that in an instance like this where "to be" is easily replaced in
>an excellently formed sentence, why further extend its use? Okrand shows no
>examples with verbal suffixes other than taH, which was itself expanded in
>ST6 to become a verb unto itself. Using 'oHpu' is a step toward sentences
>like this statement of a newly reformed conscientious objector:
>
>             mang jIHqangqa'laHbejta'vIS DaH mang jIHqangHa'
>
>     Please, let us extinguish any reflex to explore such perversifications
>of linguistic potential.

As I stated, I completely agree that the second, using qaS is superior.  But
for the record:  You absolutely can use verbal suffixes on to-be
pronoun-verbs, and the conscientious objecter statement is
completely valid (except for the need of changing -ta' to -taH,
because of -vIS).  Actually, I'm not convinced it's a good
translation anyway, because I suspect the "while" you want is really
"whereas", which I don't think is really -vIS.  But regardless:  the
use of suffixes on jIH is not wrong.  The exact wording of 6.3 says
that they are "used as verbs", which by itself implies full verbal
usage, including suffixes.  Morever, it goes on to say "...followed,
where appropriate, by verbal suffixes".  It does NOT say "followed
by -taH".  I submit that the following dialogue is completely correct:

yaS:  qatlh bIpajta'?               "Why did you resign?"
HoD:  qoH chaHmo' 'ej HoDchaj       "Because they are fools and
          jIHqangbe'qu'taHmo'!          I'm completely unwilling
                                        to continue being their captain!"

But again, I do agree that the use of "to be" in Klingon is unlikely
to mirror its use in English, so if there is a good, sound
alternative, as, in this case, qaS, I'd tend to agree that one
should go with it.


Mattvo':

>Is it possible to use multiple adjectival verbs following a noun?
>For example would these be correct ?
>
>     bortaS rur bIQ bIr Hurgh 
>     cha'pujqut boch Hab vItlhap

I'd say yes, this is Kosher, and I'll wrestle anyone in the room who
says otherwise! {{:-)


nIchyonvo':

>To Will Martin respond I thus:
>
>#     Without wishing a major conflict, 

(Well, that wish has certainly been dashed! {{:-)

>#I have to express that for all the
>#things this writer has said with which I agree, there is very little here I
>#find agreeable. I, too, have learned the Schoen alphabet and I like it, but I
>#have to recognize that Okrand has explicitly avoided endorsing it 
>
>The details of which piQaD we use are irrelevant. The simple fact is that the
>transilteration we have used in TKD is just that --- *a* transliteration, not
>*the* piQaD. Arguing about different transliterations being more or less 
>Klingonic on the basis of /i/-/I/ is just silly.

Not correct.  The transliteration we have is NOT *a*
transliteration, it is *THE* transliteration.  It is the official,
sanctioned, standard one.  The point of having a standard is so that
everyone communicates the same way and can understand each other.
Amazingly enough, that's why even computer companies today are being
dragged (kicking and screaming) towards standards.  Moreover,
because of the fact that there is not and is not likely to be an
official pIqaD, and in any case it is not doable in ascii, for all
intents and purposes, the transliteration IS pIqaD.  In short, I
completely agree with charghwI' here.

And, for the record, the Okrand transliteration *is* THE official
pIqaD of this list.  We do not vary from the standard for the same
reason we do not blithely make up new words here.  Some people do
not adhere to this, and in general we do not make too big a deal of
it.  But this list was established to support the study and practice
of tlhIngan Hol as defined by Marc Okrand, period.  We're not likely
to bust someone's chops just over I/i, but the statement that it is
just *a* transliteration cannot be allowed to stand.  If someone
were to start making up their own transliteration and using it on
this list, I promise you action would be taken.

You know, when you go to France, you don't tell them it's silly to
write a c with a thingy on it to make an s sound ("why not just use
s?  I always confuse the cedilla with a normal c, and besides, s is
so much easier to type!").  Indeed, in a standard ascii font, there
is no way to distinguish a cedilla-d c from a normal one, but,
remarkably, nobody tries to change the way we write French on the
net.  Nobody tries to do sa m'est egal instead of ca m'est egal.
Similarly, when you join a tlhIngan Hol group, you don't change the
writing either.  As far as I'm concerned, it is simple arrogance to
come into a group and say "Hey, you know that language you guys have
been reading and writing just fine?  I'm changing it!"

But enough of this.  This topic has generated way too much text from
all concerned (including, I dare add, myself).  Those who insist on
violating the standard are going to continue to do so, and there's
little anybody can do about it.  It serves no purpose to continually
rehash the thing.  Something about this should probably be put into
the FAQ, and let's BE DONE WITH IT.  I personally promise to ignore
all replies on this topic.

And, for the record, I personally tend to not read posts that
conspicuously do the I wrong.  They simply are harder for me to
read, and I'm unwilling to put in the extra effort to read it wrong
because somebody refused to write it right.


>#     I also see no basis whatsoever for ignoring a glottal stop in the middle
>#of a word simply because it was silent when the root word was spoken without
>#a prefix. It was silent only because it is difficult to start a syllable with
>#a glottal stop. Just try it. I DARE you. I know. *I*'ve certainly tried.
>
>There are those out there who would say "'Iv" *is* a syllable. There are those
>who would transcribe "uh-oh" as "?V?ou" (V = back midopen unrounded, ? = 
>glottal stop), and German "Affe" as "?af@". Hard to notice these things if you 
>don't look for them or aren't trained to, but they're very much there. German 
>never struck *me* as unspeakable, though there are those who would say 
>otherwise %^)
>
>#A glottal stop is a glottal
>#stop anywhere except the beginning of a word, where it remains silent because
>#Okrand said nothing about glottal STARTS.
>
>Incredible. Absolutely incredible. I mean, you do realise that "stop" refers
>to the stopping of airflow in the production of these sounds, rather than
>their syllablic position, right? You do know that /k/, /t/, /D/ etc. are
>also stops, don't you?
>
>Glottal starts... dearie dearie me. Please, people, if you're going to use
>linguistic terminology, make sure you're properly familiar with it first.


Astoundingly enough, wielding one's linguistic expertise like a club
serves neither to impress nor persuade.  I completely understand
what charghwI' is talking about and I completely agree with him. The
term "glottal start" makes absolute sense within the context of
tlhIngan Hol, and fills a void.  In fact, I will probably use it in
the future.   It is absolutely irrelevant that this is not a term
sanctioned by the International Linguistic Community Of People Who
Really Know What They're Talking About; it is a useful phrase that
describes a useful concept.

Moreover, I'm not even convinced, from what is given, that nIchyon
*disagrees* with charghwI'. As far as I can tell, he's just picking
charghwI' apart for technical reasons of nomenclature, but I could
be wrong.  nIchyon, if you are actually claiming that charghwI' is
wrong, that a ' that starts a verb should be ignored when adding a
prefix, then please address that point.  

Sigh.  You know, I REALLY hate this constant squabbling *about*
tlhIngan Hol.  We've really got the tail wagging the dog here.  The
English discussion is supposed to *supplement* the tlhIngan Hol
discussion.  Can't we get back to *using* the language?  This is
becoming akin to a group of Priests sitting around arguing about the
finer points of sex.  Of course, I'm as much to blame, but I'm going
to do something about it.  I'm making myself a vow that I will NOT
post in English again for the next month.

(Yeah, I heard those of you who don't read the tlhIngan Hol anyway
sighing with relief)


                        --Krankor

Back to archive top level