tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 20 05:22:21 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: law'/puS
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: law'/puS
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 95 14:22:21 MEZ
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "William H. Martin" at Jan 19, 95 3:01 pm
- Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]
> > Now, I don't have any tapes, nor am I a member of the KLI (yet),
> > and I do have problems with Okrands explanations. That is why
> > I relied on his saying these suffixes show how sure the
> > speaker is about what's being said. That's why I interpreted
> > the examples exactly the way you say above.
>
> Please do not think that I somehow judge YOU when I seek to
> correct what I consider to be an error in your interpretation
> of {-chu'}. My interest in the banter among us as we work these
> things out is that it ultimately polishes our mutual
> understanding of a language we can then use to communicate with
> each other.
>
No problem. I just wanted to make my position clear
as to my access to canon material.
> TKD is often vague. Some of that was intentional. Okrand wanted
> to leave himself enough wiggle room to bend his own rules if a
> script required him to do so. Meanwhile, here, on this list, we
> are seeking to nail down as much as possible so we have common
> tools for communication.
>
I see! But it doesn't help to know this, as long as
you only have access to TKD. I'm really happy to have
found this list!
> > So if I understand you right, then -chu' is something totally
> > different. It rather modifies the way the action is performed,
> > like the English seems to suggest. (I'm trying to translate
> > my TKD into German to make learning easier, but with such
> > omissions I'm really lost.)
>
> I am almost positive that {-chu'} does indicate a quality of
> execution of the main verb. I have not heard any significant
> other opinion expressed here.
>
Then that's the way I'll use it from now on!
> > > verbs with {-ghach} generally don't have prefixes.
> > And anyway, TKD doesn't mention this, so why is it?
>
> While I do not have my copy of HolQeD with me right now, two
> issues back, Dr. Lawrence Schoen interviewed Marc Okrand
> concerning {-ghach} and the comment was made that Okrand did
> not intend for verbs with {-ghach} to have a verb prefix. [...]
> ... and that he had a very negative reaction to the
> idea of adding {-ghach} to a verb with a prefix.
>
I understand. Now you see why I stated above that I'm
not a member of KLI? I don't have access to information
published in HolQeD.
> > That's exactly my point: I DONT want to say "speak TO the
> > passing ship". My dictionary lists the above use of "speak"
> > as a nautical expression for "exchanging information by
> > waving flags etc."
>
> Hmmm. This is an English useage I've never experienced. I would
> not expect most Klingon speakers to understand it.
>
I kind of wanted to provocate a strict "no!". I got
the expression, that sometimes you (people on the list,
not you, charghwI', personally) use Klingon words in a
way English uses the, given translation, whereas German
wouldn't. For example: Give me the betleH. German
formally distinguishes between DO and IO, so I'd expect
the verb prefix to indicate DO, which isn't always done
as you (charghwI') pointed out in a lecture you posted
a couple of weeks ago. So "I would not expect most
Klingon speakers" of German descent (which may be not
too many, granted) "to understand it" without some
puzzlement at least. See my point?
With the citation of "speak a passing ship" I was
quite sure it was unconventional enough to lead to
responses - which I got }}8-}X
> Basically, Klingon is an artificial langauge created by a
> linguist who was trying to balance these priorities:
>
> 1. Make it as alien as possible while still being functional.
>
> 2. Make it work for the scripts for Star Trek movies.
>
> 3. Make it work for the masses who buy TKD.
>
> I think of it less as an underdeveloped artificial language
> than as an overdeveloped technical project full of humor and a
> totally unjustifiable dedication on Okrand's part to make it
> surprisingly expressive. The vocabulary may be considered
> small, but for the movie scripts for which it was created, it
> is huge. While it has weak spots, considering the original
> function it was built for, it is amazingly rich and functional.
>
I agree.
> tugh Hoch Dayaj.
>
teH 'e' vItul.
> charghwI'
> --
Marc 'Doychlangan'
--
----------------------------------------------------
Marc Ruehlaender [email protected]
Universitaet des Saarlandes, Saarbruecken, Germany
----------------------------------------------------