tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 07 11:04:28 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Names vs. new words?
- From: [email protected] (M. Whiteacre)
- Subject: Re: Names vs. new words?
- Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 13:06:54 -0600
>But I do find a fine line between naming a thing and assigning a new word to
>it. Is {betleH} considered a name for a type of {'etlh} or a word? Can I
>*really* make up a name for a battle ax without it being considered a new
>word?
>
>QetaH
>(Chet Braun)
>
The problem is not with being able to make up new words and use them, the
problem is with other people recognizing them. A good example comes from
children. I have three daughters. In converstaion they might use the word
"tranta". They can use the word and talk about it in a seemingly
intelligent manner. The older two can even wrtie it down and use it in
written sentences. However, that does not help you, me, or anyone else
understand that they mean a "trantula" (the big spider, my spelling is
terrible). They did indeed make up a word for a specific type of spider and
used it, but did they make a "name" for one, in thier mind yes they did, for
the rest of us "tranta" is not part of our vocabulary, therefore they are
speaking gibberish. If enough people began to use "tranta" then maybe it
would become a "name" for us all.
In tlhIngan Hol, having enough speakers use a word IS NOT sufficient for it
to be addoped as a common "name" for an object. The only way is for Mark
Okrand to publicly accept and endorse it as a word. If you want to create a
formal name for a person (such as QetaH) and have that refer to you, there
is not a problem, since proper names refer to unique things and are commonly
"made up" words anyway, but even they really have to conform to the basic
phonlogy of the language. (can you see a child with the name "jaoskdjyrk"?)
____
|INRI|
____| |____
| |
|____ ____|
| | Matt Whiteacre
| | [email protected]
| |
| |
|____|