tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 18 14:10:36 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Quaestions
- From: [email protected] (MR PAUL J COFFEY)
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Quaestions
- Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 17:06:16 EST
Dr. Lawrence M. Schoen writes
>Robert E. Newcombe writes:
>
>> When asking a question in tlhIngan,...
>> I'd have thought that strictly the question mark was redundant !
>I've seen this kind of remark too often in the past to let it go any more.
>There is nothing wrong with redundancy in language. In fact, *all*
>languages possess, to a greater or lesser extent, redundancy. And a good
>thing they do, it allows us to decipher meaning when the signal is less
>than perfect.
{snipping out other good things which I recommend everyone read}
>
>Lawrence
Hooray!! Qapla' Ole' Wunderbar!
I first ran in to the need for redundancy in secret codes and other
such wonders. Redundancy is necessary so that the entire message gets
through. Basically, the more redundancy the more surety, up to a point.
As you say, the same principal applies languages. For that matter it
applies to other means of communications as well. When a dog smells a
hydrant twice, he is being redundant, making sure of the identity of the
previous depositor/communicant. {{:-]
Qapla'
qeSmIv HarghwI'