tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 07 05:59:14 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: jIbuDlaHbe'bej

Continuing the debat a bit
Guidovo': (?)
> >Ack! Not this again! Please look up {Hech} in your KD's. It means "mean"
> >as in "intend". It does NOT mean "mean" as in "signify"....
...
Krankorvo':
> Sorry, d00d, you lose.  You have an irksome tendency to treat your own
> personal micro-reading of Okrand's frustratingly-minimal definitions as
> gospel truth.  This one is *certainly* far from unambiguous, and indeed,
> the very meaning of "intend" could well be construed as "good enough".
> "word X intends meaning Y"-- why not?

charghwI'vo':
     Well. It's a bit of a stretch because even the definition says "mean
to", not "mean". {<<puq>> Hech "child"}. That sentence would mean "'Child'
means to <<puq>>," which doesn't make any sense. Just because one of the two
words/phrases in the definition contains the word "mean" doesn't mean that it
means mean. (Heh). Even if we don't come out strongly and tell someone they
are wrong for using {Hech} in this way, I think we should at least warn them
that it is really not very good form.

     But then, I guess you already know all this:

> Now, let me state clearly that *I personally agree with you*, that it's
> kind of a reach and not a great translation...  

> In the end, it comes down to how we read the comma embedded in multi-word
> definitions.  When a Klingon word is given a two word English definition
> of "X, Y", does that mean "X, in the sense of Y" or simply "X or Y".

     The process I usually use is to try to look up both meanings in the
English-Klingon side. If both versions do not exist (like {qel} or {vIH}),
then I tend to believe it means "X, in the sense of Y" or one of the types of
definitions explained on page 79 (where in "X, Y", X is the keyword in a
phrase and Y is the phrase, or X is the adjectival form and Y is the verbal
form, termed the "accurate" form of the definition by Okrand). If both
definitions DO exist (like {Hech}), then I tend to think it means "X or Y".

     Of course, the presence or absence of such definitions could also be
simple errors on Okrand's part, since there certainly are quite a few of
them. A dozen or so of the upper alphabet English-Klingon words are absent
from the Klingon-English side of the dictionary, and the Klingon word for
"cooperate" is completely different between the two sides of the dictionary.
Then there are the spelling differences for "Denebia" and so forth...

     Anyway, this is just a suggestion as a tool to assist in the subjective
decisions surrounding ambiguous words. If you look up a word in both the
English-Klingon and Klingon-English sides of the dictionary, sometimes you
can come to at least minor revellations about these words. It becomes
accumulatively interesting if you retype the entire dictionary, as only a
foolish few of us have done...

     I'm near the end of the first phase of my own annotated dictionary. As I
entered each word in the Klingon-English side of TKD, I copied that word into
its appropriately sorted spots in my own English-Klingon side. I then
proofread this against TKD's English-Klingon side. This gave me an unusual
perspective on the differences between the two. Particularly interesting is
the way he inconsistently includes these multiple, comma delimited
definitions in the English-Klingon side. Whether the reward of this
perspective justifies the hours I've spent at the keyboard is another matter
altogether...

     And as for the comment about Proechel using {pong} to refer to what you
do to someone with a telephone, well, Proechel seems to believe he has
license to sweep aside the inconvenience of what he considers to be missing
words by making up new ones (to describe extended family members) or making
unusual use of the ones we have. He also wants to use every verb as a noun
whenever he likes. This makes translating from English to Klingon very easy.
Unfortunately, it makes understanding what he is saying rather difficult. I
do not see that kind of lopsided emphasis as a positive force on the
development of the language.

charghwI'

Back to archive top level