tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 09 13:03:43 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: TKD3 & other expansions w...
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: TKD3 & other expansions w...
- Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 15:59:19 -0500
>Subject: Re: TKD3 & other expansions w...
>Date: 95-01-09 09:18:35 EST
>From: [email protected] (Arden R. Smith)
>Let's suppose that someone, say Anthony Appleyard, were to write a text
>containing words or grammatical structures that were not "canonical"
>Klingon but were instead made up out of whole cloth. He might get his idea
>across, but then again he might not. As Guido wrote: "The point of
>studying and using a language is to be mutually intelligible." Let's
>suppose, for the sake of argument, that people *did* understand what Mr.
>Appleyard was trying to say and that some people even started to use some
>of his newfangled, made-up Klingon. If we regard Klingon as a living
>language (such as Esperanto has become) with ourselves as the speakers, and
>if enough people start using these new words or constructions, then these
>new inventions will become part of the language. I think, however, that
>there would be too much resistance from the Klingon-speaking community at
>large for this to happen.
Yes, I think the mainstream attitude is that Klingon is a natural language,
and that TKD is not exhaustive. Indeed, Okrand has revealed grammatical
aspects of the language in post-KD materials. Two good examples are {nuq}
used a pronominal copula as in {ponglIj nuq} (from CK) and serialized verbs,
like {chop chev} and {ngagh ruch} (from PK). We know for certain that the
vocab in TKD is not exhaustive either. Esperanto is different in that
respect. But Klingon is also considered a natural language, and as such, it
has to have its own stylistic standard, viz., the way the language expresses
concepts with the most efficient use of its own structure. Those who try to
break the mold are already violating this principle. You just have to get a
feel for Klingon. One of my pet peeve's is lots and lots of English idioms
loaded in Klingon texts. When I start seeing too many {'e' vIQub} and {'e'
vItul}, it just bugs me, because languages get by making more common usage of
certain phrases, but not necessarily just these. English just happens to use
phrases like "I hope" and "I think" a lot. Also, many people will complain
about Klingon's expressiveness, and then fail to make full use of many of its
features. I've heard so many complaints about not enough adverbials, but from
what I've seen, most Klingon adverbials are not used only rarely, or not at
all, simply because they don't occur in English so much, such as {pe'vIl},
{jaS}, {nIteb}, {batlh}, {bong}, {chIch}, {Do'}. It's not that there aren't
enough adverbials, it's just that the most common English adverbs and the
Klingon ones do not overlap. Also, type 3 nouns suffixes and type 6 verb
suffixes are not employed all that much for as useful as they are.
Before people even think about complaining, they'd better be making full use
of the common particles and morphemes in Klingon.
Guido