tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 18 06:38:08 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: chu' mu'mey nuqDaq vItu'laH'a'
- From: "Garrett Michael Hayes" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: chu' mu'mey nuqDaq vItu'laH'a'
- Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 09:37:03 -0500
- Organization: Client/Server Labs
- Priority: normal
On 17 Jan 96 at 19:54, [email protected] wrote:
> In a message dated 96-01-17 10:06:43 EST, you write:
>
> One of the most difficult language study projects I ever undertook
> was learning Atayal, an aboriginal language on Taiwan, all because
> it was unwritten and had no studied grammar. I had to memorize
> each phrase just as the natives spoke them and deduce what I could
> regarding grammar which had no pre-set rules.
That's interesting, and raises another point which I think gets
missed a *lot*. The fact that the grammar of a language has or has
not been "studied" doesn't dictate whether there *are* rules of
grammar.
You indicate that Atayal "had no pre-set rules", but I would argue
that that could not possibly be the case. The rules may not have
been formalized, but they *must* have existed or no one could
communicate.
On the other hand, the existence of a set of formalized rules does
not actually control the use of a given language. We know from
experience that grammatical rules get violated in day to day speech
all the time, without materially dimishing understanding.
> As to using {ghaj}, Marc Okrand also uses it a lot in idiomatic Klingon, viz.
> {pIch vIghajbe'}. I even get the feeling we could find broader uses for it.
>
> >vaj yap De' vIghajbe' appears REAL good to me.
>
> Then, I am only one person on this list. We have discussion among lots of us
> so we can come to better conclusions. I hope to see what others post soon.
*That* doesn't sound very tlhIngan in attitude! <grin>
'etlhqengwI'
Garrett Michael Hayes; Client/Server Labs
8601 Dunwoody Place, Suite 332, Atlanta, GA 30350
[email protected], http://www.cslinc.com
770-552-3645 voice, 770-993-4667 fax