tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 09 17:24:00 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Responses to Vocabluary
- From: Adam Walker <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Responses to Vocabluary
- Date: Thu, 9 Nov 95 19:19:52 -0600
- Organization: Dallas Baptist University
> 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.
Sorry that this caused confusion, but as I use the words "concept" and
"idea" are near synonyms. (True synonyms--exact equasions of meaning-
-are quite rare and border on redundancy IMHO.)
> In isolation, a word does not carry meaning.
> It is merely a thing. In context, there can be meaning.
True and not true. All words carry meaning. Even particals below
word level (eg. the plural marker -s in English or any of the Klingon
affixes) carry meaning. The meaning of some words is far more
context-dependant than that of others (content vs. function words),
but they all have meanings. (Some times many, many meanings)
Context is how ever a most vital componant in determining what that
meaning is in the current situation.
> I'm just pointing out that you don't quite seem to have made the
step
> from learning the vocabulary to using the grammar.
I do not pretend to be adept at the use of the vocabulary or the
grammar. I am a beginner. I am in the process of learning both. But
don't forget that the grammar is just as useless without the
vocabulary as vice versa, and niether functions without context which
is to be sought at the discourse level not the sentance level.
> 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?
No, as I said in my Response, I am thankful to those who answered me
honestly with their opinions AND their warnings. I was responding to
one specific answer only which was couched as an attack and used
exactly the terms I quoted.
> > > 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.
Again the vocabulary is an entegral part of the language, what
effects the part effects the whole. And "weak parts" was not my
wording, but more qouted material from the affore mentioned posting.
>The rest of the language can be used to express concepts that do not
appear in the dictionary.
Of course it can. That is what I was attempting to obtain help with
in my original posting, and as I said I did recieve valuable input
from many of you.
> > 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"?)
I agree with you that this is not the way that children learn for the
most part. (Though is does play a small role in later stages of the
language learning process.) This again is more quoted material from
the offending post. The point that I was trying to make is that not
all thing childlike should be so swiftly dismissed.
> Translating words is easy -- even
> a computer program can do it.
Not so.
> 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.
My goal does NOT differ from your.
> 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.
Sad to say, but again these were quotes from one but only one post.
I have not seen anyone else come close to this type of behavior. In
the future I should probably direct communications of this nature
directly to the person involved and leave the group out of the
matter. Sorry to have involved everyone.
> > 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.
Sorry, I agree. Reading that now it does look very arrogant. I did
not mean to sound like the omnipotent Q bestowing the benifit of his
presence on the students of tlhingan Hol, but that IS how it sounds.
:-{( Sorry.
I hope I have cleared up some of the confusion I caused. If not tell
me, and I'll try again.
> > -- ghunchu'wI'
SaquvmoH.
Qogh