tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 09 15:49:58 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Responses to Vocabluary
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: Responses to Vocabluary
- Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 18:49:51 -0500
Qogh writes:
> ...In my original post I included the word "concept" in parentheses
>as an explanation for my use of "word" just to avoid time-wasting
>responses lecturing me on the evils of word-for-word translation. I
>am interested only in expressing ideas -- as is everyone else here.
You asked how to express "words (concepts)". I infer from this that
you intend "concept" to mean something different from what I intended
"idea" to mean. I don't want to translate the names of objects or
actions, which is what I consider "concepts" to be. I want to have
someone understand a complete statement or question. You suggested
a word for "volcano". In isolation, a word does not carry meaning.
It is merely a thing. In context, there can be meaning. Ideas can
be communicated between people. I'm not trying to bite your head off,
I'm just pointing out that you don't quite seem to have made the step
from learning the vocabulary to using the grammar.
> My approach may, indeed, lead to frustration. It appearantly
>already has -- yours. I have seemingly made a fatal error in
>assuming that the purpose of this group is inquiry, discussion and
>exploration leading to discovery.
Your assumption is valid. This group encourages exploration. Several
people responded to your request with warnings about the pitfalls of
trying to translate words. Did you misread them as attacks on you?
> If the "weak parts" of the language are ignored they remain
>weak...
The lack of certain concepts in the vocabulary is not a weak part of
the language, it is a weak part of the vocabulary. The rest of the
language can be used to express concepts that do not appear in the
dictionary.
> If asking for single words is childish, so be it. Children are
>after all the primary language learners and quite successful at it.
I reject this argument. Children do not ask "How do I say *wema*?"
They learn the names of objects and actions. If something does not
have a name, they don't learn it as a unique concept. (What is the
top of the foot called? What's the word for "cook pasta"?)
> ...Single words and/or word parts are the building blocks of the
>language. If there are no blocks -- wherewith to build? Working
>with single words is not futile. TKD itself deals, in large part,
>with single words as does any dictionary.
Count the pages. TKD deals with vocabulary and grammar in nearly
equal amounts. By focusing on the words and affixes, you neglect
the other half of the language. Translating words is easy -- even
a computer program can do it. The challenge is finding ways to use
the words in order to communicate. If your goal differs from mine
and you aren't planning to use the language to communicate, then we
don't have much more to talk about.
> I do not expect Klingon to
>have a single word to concisely express every concept. English, even
>if you knew and used every word in the OED, lacks words for many
>concepts. Try expressing mamihlapinatipe in English. (If you ask
>nicely I'll tell you what it means.)
Try expressing "blacksmith" in Klingon. It's exactly the same issue.
There isn't a single word for it, and there might not even be a simple
phrase that expresses the concept. We KNOW there isn't a concise way
to say "dance" in Klingon.
> I do not wish to precipitate a flame war, but if the use of such
>epithets as "obnoxious child" and references to other's skills and
>diligence persist such may ensue.
You have certainly misread the messages to which you refer. I am sure
that nobody called you obnoxious, and I am sure that nobody disparaged
your skill, and I am sure that nobody accused you of not being diligent.
I believe that nobody even intended to imply that you are obnoxious.
> The differance between bearded and non-bearded men is one of
>appearance. Even so I doubt that there is not a lnguage somewhere
>that conciders this a difference important enough to lexicalize.
>On the other hand the difference between a mountain and a volcano is
>one of function and thus more likely to invite lexicalization.
Granted. As you have noticed, {pem Hov} or sometimes even {pemHov} has
very nearly become an official word for "sun". But Klingon does not
always distinguish between things English does. The color words, for
instance, are a constant reminder of this. See also {ghoS}.
> As far as "future contributions" are concerned, I have already
>made my most significant contribution simply by becoming a member of
>this community.
This sounds like a very arrogant attitude (I won't ask for you to
excuse my opinion). You expect that your mere presence will be of
more benefit to the group than your ideas? I sincerely hope I have
misunderstood you badly.
> If I never become an expert or even a good
>Klingonist, I have still become a vital part of a small, but growing
>community. New and junior members need to be encouraged to post and
>to post often, to ask, to seek, to learn. Use is the key to the life
>of a language.
jIQochbe'qu'. vaj yIlo' jay'!
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj