tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 24 06:27:40 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: translating and gaps in vocabulary

Anthony Appleyard writes:
 
> recently I had to say {bIQ bIng tlhuHwI' lo'wI'} = "water under breathe-er
> use-er", 6 syllables; for practical use a shorter word for "underwater
> breathing set" and/or "scuba diver" is needed.

This is a very ironic example in that "scuba" didn't start out as a word but 
actually as an acronym. Still, to stick with this example, Klingon is hardly the
only language not to have a word for "scuba" and as is the case with items that 
are not part of the culture a foreign word might be used. That's the way other 
languages manage the trick, why should expect Klingon to be any different? As 
I'm sure you know, many languages map the foreign term onto their own phonology 
(so they can pronounce it), and some (e.g., Japanese) even have a different way 
of writing foreign terms so they clearly stand out and are not mistaken for 
native words. While I'll grant you that a Klingon word for "underwater" doesn't 
strike me as unreasonable, names for technology that might not exist (or that 
might have existed only in a technologically more primitive time than the time 
frame of TKD) are less warranted and certainly not "needed."

>   (2) We need separate suffixes for instrument and agent. E.g. if {X} is a
> verb = "he scuba dives", {XwI'} could mean (a) a scuba diver and also (b) his
> breathing set.

Again, no, we don't.  While many languages make excellent use of such markers, 
many more manage quite well thank you without them. Would it be nice to have 
them, maybe. Would it be keen, again, maybe. But the point is, they're not 
features of the language, and wishing isn't going to make it so.

While I appreciate the dilemma caused by the nominalizing -wI' suffix, I 
personally like a little ambiguity in language.  It's a natural part of language
and it provides flavor. 

>   (3) We need a short word for "chemical element". That would let us name all
> the chemical elements: {Y} = "element", {Y loSmaH wej} = element 43 =
> technetium; {'ej DaqDaq 'e' Y-HutmaH-loS <be_composed_of>bogh ghopDap
> tlhilwi''e' loghSut Y-chorgh ngaSwi'mey lutmeyHey vIQoypu'} = "And in that
> place I heard apparent stories of an asteroid miner whose spacesuit oxygen
> cylinders were made of plutonium.".

There's that "need" word again.  What is so pressing here?  And your solution of
simply numbering elements rather than naming them is hardly elegant or 
interesting.  This is the sort of logic I'd expect in a Vulcan language list 
mailing (though I'm open to the argument that Klingons have little appreciation 
of scientific discovery and so wouldn't *bother* naming elements or compounds).

>   (4) Excuse the hyphens: but how else to distinguish e.g. {Duj-loS pu'mey} =
> "Ship #4's phasers" from {Duj loS-pu'mey} = "4 phasers belonging to the 
> ship"?

We're back to the issue of ambiguity.  Let's say you can't tell them apart in 
this instance.  So what?  Language is not isolated sentences, it's extended 
discourse too.  Are you telling me that there wouldn't be a context for such a 
contrived sentence?  A context which clearly disambiguates such as "I have six 
phasers that need to go to the base, what about those four?"

This is exactly the sort of contrived example that bothers me about some of the 
arguments in modern linguistics.  They exist in isolation, in situations totally
divorced from language use.  Sure, they stick out as awkward, improbably, and 
uninterpretable.  Let's hang someone upside down and naked in a white room for a
few days and see if they make much sense.

*     *     *

Sorry, tirade over.

Lawrence


::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Dr Lawrence M Schoen, Director   :: The KLI is a nonprofit ::
:: The Klingon Language Institute   :: tax exempt corporation ::
:: POB 634, Flourtown, PA 19031 USA :: DaH HuchlIj'e' ghonob  ::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::  [email protected]  :: http://www.kli.org ::  215/836-4955  ::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Back to archive top level