tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 24 11:53:32 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Generic Ideas

I wasn't sure what category I should put this under; it's simplistic enough
that even learners might be able to handle it, but it's not really a 
tough debate question.

I was just reading one of the recent -Ha' -Ha' -Ha' messages, talking about
distracted guards or some such, and it sparked a question in my mind.

How many "real" language have such complex prefix/suffix creations/rules?
I think that, because we all MUST learn Klingon through translation, we
may be running into troubles in translations because many times there
are constructions that can't be defined in English, and often timers there
are several interpretations.

Let's analogize this to a real-world language:  English (the only one I know).
In English, there are several prefixes (few suffixes) that modify words,
in a very similar way as Klingon does.  For example, "fabricate", and
"prefabricate", "generate" and "regenerate", "electricute" and "electricution",
and so on.

Many times you can figure out what a word means by knowing the root, and
understanding the purpose of the modifier (prefix or suffix).  But many times
this doesn't really work either.

For example, say you were learning English, and you know the word "view"
means to see something.  You know the prefix "pre" means before.  So the
word "preview" should mean "to see before".  But what does this mean
exactly?  My dictionary says that preview is to see before <public 
presentation>.  But "preheat" means to heat before <placing food inside>,
and "preadolescence" simply means before adolescence.  In all cases, the
prefix is the same, and general meaning is the same, but the exact
translation/meaning can be very different.  I don't want to even mention
"preboard" (used in airports), since George Carlin has dealt with this
rather well.

So what's this all about?

With as many suffixes as Klingon has, I think it may have too many.  There
are too many combinations to be made "on the fly" to always make your
point.  As -Ha' has shown us, there are often several interpretations, even
for the EXACT same word!  While many languages have various prefix/suffix
constructions, most of the time you learn a specific definition for each
combination.  This hasn't been done with Klingon; in fact, I'd almost
venture to say that it's IMPOSSIBLE to do with Klingon, due to the sheer
number of suffixes.

So what do we do about this?

I dunno.  Perhaps we should start a publicly-kept list of "accepted"
definitions for each word combination we come across.  After all, English
dictionaries list both preview and view as separate words, as well as inform
and information.  A truly complete Klingon dictionary should probably do
the same, or at least similar.  This would obviously be of most use to those
working on computerized parsers; they could provide much more detailed
definitions...

This isn't to say that Klingon is bad; I like the concept.  But I think the
idea of mix & match suffixes can't work unless the suffixes and verbs are
all perfectly thought out to handle the mechanism.

Anyone interested in giving Klingon a complete go-over and rewrite to come
up with an "always working" mechanism...  Perhaps "Derived Klingon"?

...Paul

Back to archive top level