tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 22 12:03:54 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: perpetual Today Is A *****

According to Dennis Orosz:
> 
> On Thu, 18 Jan 1996, d'Armond Speers wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 17 Jan 1996, Dennis Orosz wrote:
> > 
> > You obviously do not know the man of whom you speak.
> > charghwI'...

[nice stuff deleted]

> Quite obviously I don't know him, nor was this message directed as a 
> personnel attack I have boundless admiration for anyone who can lead and 
> teach with as much humor and intelligence as I've seen him using here.  

Thanks.

> > Communication.  I would not accept the claim that Klingon is a "living" 
> > language.  There are no native speakers.  There are no communities for 
> > whom Klingon is the primary language.  We have a group of people who 
> > study the language, and communicate as best we can with the tools we have.
> 
> now I think you miss my point, all to easy to do as we attempt to 
> communicate in writing in a language that was designed to be spoken!!!
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> but I would insist that this is a living language to those of us involved 
> in this group, we await further information and exposition of its 
> vocabulary and grammer which we could not due were it a "dead" 
> language...please note the quotes in both cases.

This is a good point, in particular that it focuses on the
unique aspect of this language. Unlike Latin, there is some
potential for modifying the vocabulary and grammar. Unlike
English, it is a language basically owned by a single person
who created it, so your average Joe can't just utter something
cool enough that it catches on and suddenly the language
changes. Only one guy can do that.

This group basically tries to learn how to speak the language
as created by Okrand. In doing so, we run into the problems
that are a natural part of trying to express a wide range of
ideas and feelings through this language developed in such a
compressed timetable compared to any other.

We've slowly gained limited access to Okrand so that if we
whine^h^h^h^h^h ask honorably long enough, he occasionally
addresses some of our concerns. Eventually.

Still, in respect of this ongoing, if limited, relationship
with Okrand, we do our best to conservatively interpret the
rules and vocabulary of the language, learning how to max out
its expressive capabilities while minimizing the need to extend
it beyond its current state (and suggesting what sort of
extensions that might be most productive).

There have been positive changes. Krankor perhaps got in the
first suggestion that the noun suffix {-'e'} might be used to
point out the head noun of a relative clause which has both an
explicit subject AND object. We've gotten a couple extra
adverbials. Lawrence finally got {yejHaD}. We had {-ghach}
somewhat clarified.

What are the other questions we'd like him to address? Well, my
personal list, as I can remember it (since I forgot to copy it
forward from an old DayTimer:

1. How are we REALLY supposed to use the verb {pong} and other
ditransitives?

2. Give us a little more clarity on how we are to handle
transitive/intransitive status on specific verbs. Ideally, this
would mean having each verb in the vocabulary marked as one or
the other, or some new grammatical algorithm we currently do
not have to determine, for example, if I move my knife, is that
{tajwIj vIvIH} or {tajwIj vIvIHmoH}, or either.

3. Can I violate the "only the second noun of a noun-noun
possessive can have a Type 5 noun suffix" rule to say, "I like
the daughter of the man who sells shoes."? Since using {-'e'}
to mark the head noun of the relative clause is a newer rule
than the limit against using that suffix on the first noun, is
this cause for an exception? {waqmey ngevbogh *loD'e' puqbe'*
vIparHa'.}

4. What is the best way to handle the question word "which"? My
own guess is to translate any question like, "Which weapon do
you want?" into a command, like "Choose a weapon." While it is
dodging the problem, I can't come up with a "which" question
that cannot be translated into a command to choose. I also do
not like any of the suggested uses of {nuq}, which acts like a
noun, to also serve as an adjective (like "which").

5. Can we get a little help with colors? It seems like a
langauge of a people with so much emphasis on the number three
should have three color words, right? Why two? And given the
agglutenative nature of the language and the efficiency of its
ability to express a wide range of meaning in many "shades", it
would seem like there would be some way to express a wide range
of colors through inventive combinations of words or affixes...

6. Units of measure. We should either get more than just a
qalI'cam, or get Klingon adaptations of Fed. standard units. I
mean if we are supposed to be sometimes inaccurate, but never
approximate, then give us something to measure with. We have
time, more or less, but we have very little for distance and
even less for weight or volume.

7. We could use a few more body parts. And why do we have a
word like "helmet" when we have never seen one single Klingon
helmet in the entire series, while we don't have a word for
"hat", leaving us with no way to translate Worf's famous, "Nice
hat."

But I digress.

> > You can't consider Klingon to be a living, breathing and growing language 
> > like English.  We don't have that luxury, because we don't have a 
> > community of native speakers.  Because our community of speakers is so 
> > small, any distortions introduced to the language will only serve to 
> > weaken it's utilitiy as a medium of communication.
> 
> here I totally disagree, beleiveing that that consideration is not a 
> luxury but neccesary...this language does grow... you and the others here 
> make it breath and live 

While this is true, it is not because we allow people to make
up new words or new rules which Okrand does not sanction.
Basically, we work with what we have, and when we hit limits,
we discuss ways around them using the existing tools first.
Only after everyone fails to come up with a means of using the
old tools to achieve new expression do we take the route of
begging^h^h^h^h^h^h^h submitting suggestions to Okrand so that
he might someday illuminate us as to the best way to face these
limits (with an occasional new key to the lock).

> > The challege, rather, is to learn to use the tools that the grammar 
> > of Klingon provides, to express oneself clearly, as a warrior.  How do we 
> 
> complete agreement...questioning only the fineness of the lens you have 
> focused on it...

This is always a question of balance. Newer jatlhwI' tend to
want things looser. More experienced jatlhwI' tend to want
things more standardized. There are exceptions to this, but my
suspicion is that once things get beyond a small threshold of
looseness, self-proclaimed authorities tend to stand up and
declare whole new packets of vocabulary and entirely
unjustifiable grammar reinterpretations. It turns into a
screaming match. Someone calls someone else an idiot. Flames
fly. The langauge is not improved.

We can all agree on the language as Okrand presents it and we
can all differ on where we want the langauge bent from there. I
may wish for expansion in various areas, but I use the language
as it has been presented in TKD, the two audio tapes, the
handful of Skywatch cards, and other Okrand sanctified canon.
> 
>  tlhIngan Hol wIjatlh maH neH.  'ej 
> > choyajchu'chugh vaj pab Dayajchu'nIS.  pab vIpabbe'chugh vaj 
> > choyajlaHchu'be'.  pab vIpabchugh 'ej pab Dayajchu'be', vaj 
> > choyajlaHchu'be'.  'ej mayajchuqlaHchu'be', vaj maQumlaHbe'.  
> > maQumlaHbe'DI', QapHa' Hol.
> > 
> > > Dennis
> > 
> > --Holtej

charghwI'
-- 

 \___
 o_/ \
 <\__,\
  ">   | Get a grip.
   `   |

Back to archive top level