tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 28 05:15:36 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: <Hol wIja'chuq>
Guidovo':
> >And when you look at it in this light, *none* of our "instincts" are any
> >good, because none of us is tlhIngan, really.
>
> Well, there you go. But saying /none/ of our instincts are /any/ good is
> taking it just a trite too far. Saying, where our instincts don't correspond
> on a point where information is insufficient to logically prove that one of
> us is correct, is much more the way to go, as was the case with ~mark and
> Qanqor.
The reson I say our instincts aren't any good (assuming this was my
post... it certainly looks like something I might have said...), is
simply because they *aren't*. We are following the patterns and 'logic'
of terran-speaking minds. What make 'feel right' to us may very well
grate on a a tlhIngan's nerves. Look at the differneces in music
preferences, after all... might not this same disagreement in how
language should be structured be different as well? What business do we
have imposing our terran "preferences" to Hol?!?!?!?
> Good point. Tacking {-Daq} on a noun before {qet}, {yIt}, {jaH}, etc., is
> safe, and conservative. With {ghoS}, however, I must protest. {ghoS} looks as
> transitive to me as {HoH}. That's not to say, never tack {-Daq} onto a noun
> before {ghoS}; I'm not allowed to condemn such usage, being the non-god that
> I am. But I can say that I *feel* that such usage is highly redundant (and
> yet I grudgingly admit, it is still totally grammatical)..
That's right; it is grammatical. Just like using the "to be"
construction. Some of us don't like to see it used... but you can't harp
on those who **DO** opt to use it because it is ABSOLUTELY GRAMMATICALLY
CORRECT! {{:)
> >> There's just no room to argue. It's there in TKD. Plus, just to emphasize
> my
> >> point, {-Daq} on {pa'} (when it means "thereabouts"), {Dat}, and {naDev}
> is
> >> illegal. I would also venture that it's illegal on {vogh}, but don't bet
> the
> >> mortgage on it.
>
> >You are absolutely right; those words cannot take -Daq. I wouldn't bet
> >on <vogh>, either. Until we get a specific example, I would still -Daq it.
>
> Wellllll, I dunno. We both agree that the issue of whether {vogh} is allowed
> to take {-Daq} is unresolved at this point. My opinion is that it is like its
> brother, {naDev}, and wouldn't ever take {-Daq}, but again, I can't criticize
> trI'Qal for thinking the opposite.
Let us understand something here: YOU CANNOT SAY SOMETHING EXISTS IN Hol
JUST BECAUSE FROM WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN, IT *SHOULD* EXISTS UNLESS YOU HAVE
PROOF THAT IT CAN!
You are trying to make a hypothesis wihout any proof! Yes, I agree that
what you are saying is *possible*... it would make sense... but there is
absolutely NO PROOF to support your hypothesis that <vogh> should also be
one of those words which is an exception to the -Daq rule... in which
case... guess what? IT ISN'T! Until you show me some real, SOLID
evidence that <vogh> shouldn't take -Daq, IT TAKES it, because THAT is
what the KD says!
Yes, I am getting a bit peeved about this. Ideas are great... but
REMEMBER TO BACK THEM UP before you start trying to push them on the rest
of us as this-is-the-way-it-should-be! Thank you! {{:)
> >> ><Hol wIja'chuq> is definitely ugly. It is flat-out ungrammatical. Yes,
> >> >I *know* <ja'chuq> is a seperate dictionary entry, but that doesn't
> >> >change the fact that what we have here is a verb with a type 1
> >> >attached... and the grammar, as we know it, doesn't allow wI- at the
> >> >beginning of such verbs. Make sense?
> >>
> >> Yeah yeah. It doesn't conform to perfect logic, but then.. I feel quite
> >> acceptant of {Hol wIja'chuq}. It's rather colloquial (think of it, Klingon
> >> slang now!), but it makes perfect sense to even novices in the language. I
> >> personally find it more natural than the stiff {maja'chuqtaHvIS Hol wIqel}
> or
> >> some such. You see, if an American goes, "Lugnuts? We ain't got no more
> >> lugnuts!", he/she/it is in no danger of confusing anyone. You see,
> languages
> >> work by what people understand. They most certainly do not have to conform
> to
> >> total logic, as any natural language will demonstrate in an instant.
>
> >Yes, but you forget one thing:
>
> >We don't have the authority to decide what is "slang" and what is not.
>
> I'm not suggesting we define every possible piece of Klingon slang that could
> ever potentially exist. Where did that come from?! All I'm saying is that
> this one particular construction looks colloquial, and by that I mean that it
> is not entirely grammatically logical, but it is semantically clear and thus
> informally acceptable. That is how I justify calling {Hol wIja'chuq} Klingon
> slang.
#1: You don't get it. We don't have the right or authority, nor
anything else to declare EVEN ONE THING as "slang"! It looks like
salng? Fine. IT is NOT slang... unless you want it to be your own
private dialect, bceause I for one, will NOT share it with you.
#2: What is semantically clear to YOU is not necessarily semantically
clear to ME, let alone an entire other CULTURE!! ?Hol wIja'chuq? is
nothing more than verbal (or in this case, ASCII) garbage to me. So it
"feels right" This goes back to the "instincts" thing: By what
reasoning to you have to impose your terran-language based concepts of
grammar upon Klingon? Whatever it is, it had better be *damned* good...
because in my mind, there isn't any reason.
> >Come on! You are saying that just because a word is listed in the KD, it
> >defies the laws of grammar we were given? I suppose next you are going
>
> [interruption:] Whoa! Now, I'm not like some other people here. I realize
> that {ja'chuq} is made up of the verb {ja'}+{-chuq}, and that its listing as
> a separate entry in TKD doesn't prove jacksquat as far as its transitivity
> status is concerned.
Your arguments are saying the contrary. Here you are saying how ?Hol
wIja'chuq? looks reasonable as "slang" or some such, and now you are
trying to tell me you don't think it is grammatically correct. Please
decide what it is you want to say, and say it clearly. (Heh... I am one
to talk, I know... but still... sheesk)
> >to tell me I can say something like:
>
> > ?jIHvaD lo'laHlaH taj?
> > "The knife can be valuable for me"
>
> Now this time you're getting me all wrong. I don't agree with this. Wofuer
> halten Sie mich?-- einen Narr?!
I don't speak German, and neither do most of the rest of the people on
this list, I believe. I speak Klingon, English, and if I really
concentrate, some French. I don't want to really have to concentrate, so
please pick one of the first two.
>
> >I don't think ANYONE is going to agree this is a viable construct. *I*
> >certainly wouldn't! And what you are doing is essentually the same
> >thing: You are saying that because it happens to be listed seperately in
> >the KD, it is a WHOLE NEW WORD, and that it defies the rules we have been
> >given so far.
>
> Ackptooie! You got the wrong guy, I tell ya! That ain't me! I don't think
> that way!
qar'a'? yItob! nuq Dajatlh 'e' DaHechba'?
> >I don't buy it.
>
> But ya gotta listen! I was framed, see?! Framed! Yeah, that's it! That's the
> ticket!
*chuckles*
> >Unfortuantely, I don't have my tapes here with me to skim for an example
> >to support this. If what you are saying is true, then we can have things
> >like <maja'chuqchuq> "we discuss each other". Sorry, *MY* KD sez I can
> >only have **ONE** of each verb suffix type on each verb. And this sure
> >as HELL looks like it is in violation of this rule to me.
>
> >Why don't we just start letting people say <ramvam HIpong> "call me
> >tonight" and get it over with???
>
> Augh! NOW YOU'RE CALLING ME A PROECHELIST!!! That does it, trI'Qal! You fire
> up your rusty pile of bolts, lIy So' and meet me just outside of
> UpperSandusky (midway of Lexington and Toledo) at the break of dawn. I'll be
> waiting with all my loyal Guidos right behind me. Right, Guidos?!!
Gladly. My crew need some entertainment... but seriously... this is
where your arguments were leading. If this WASN'T what you intended...
what was? Because this was the message *I* was reading.
For those who haven't been around as long as I have, I want to point out
that I used think as "liberally" as Guido here, about certain other
topics. And yes, it was rather harshly beaten into me that it isn't our
right, nor purpose, to say that just because it "looked" like something
should be done one way, that it *should* be. Ideas are great, and should
certainly be voiced, but *don't* try to impose them as"this is the way we
should be doing this" unless you have some sort of solid backing.
And sorry, I don't see much backing behind this idea yet. 'kay? And
since we already know what to do in this case (add a -Daq to <vogh>), I
don't see why this should taek up any more bandwidth than it already
has... unless you can find some sort of canonical evidence. yay.
*prepares to get flamed back horribly*
> <10000 Guidos shout in unison their rallying cry>
Fine. I will bring my Dragons... all 10792 of them. :)
> After the war, we'll discuss it over a delicious mound of qagh and a couple
> tall mugs of Romulan Ale.
Fine. You bring the qagh, I'll supply the ale. ;)
--tQ
--
HaghtaHbogh tlhIngan yIvoqQo'! toH, qatlh reH HaghtaH HoD Qanqor...?
--HoD trI'Qal Captain T'rkal ---------------------
tlhwD lIy So' IKV Hidden Comet | [email protected]