tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 13 17:14:49 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Nouns as Verbs
- From: "Dr. Maciej St. Zieba" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Nouns as Verbs
- Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 20:13:47 EDT
"William H. Martin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>According to Consulat General de Pologne:
>
>> Taking TKD let me choose by hazard some of the nouns that could function
>> as verbs too:
>> bep: agony - to agonize
>
>In English, this makes sense, but it could easily mean to give
>agony (I'm going to agony this jerk if he doesn't shut up) or
>receive agony or witness agony or act in the manner of one in
>agony (He agonies well, but I don't believe it for a minute)...
>
>> biQ: water - to water (to water a flower = to make use water; to water a ship
>> = to make take place on water; to water a log = to function as water =
>> = a river waters logs down = lets them float with water down; all
>> three meaning attested in Polish).
>
>This is the whole point of the difficulty of making up your own
>words which you have figured out how to construct. Someone else
>might have a different logic and miss your meaning entirely.
>~mark often speaks of hindsight words which make perfect sense
>to the person who made them, but are gibberish to anybody else.
>We are pretty much stuck with Okrand's vocabulary and a few
>very conservatively logical extensions. Meanwhile, without
>Okrand's approval, we can't even give ourselves the perfectly
>logical question word {'arlogh}. Why should we accept "water"
>as a verb?
I didn't want to counter any of Marc Okrand's (reH yInjaj! 'ej reH najtaHvIS
qeylIS ghomjaj!) approvals.
The only answer to the question "why?" could be "because we need it!". But
I think you mean not a question "why?" but rather "On what basis?", and
that's another thing. That's exactly what I asked you and now you reverse
the situation and retur the question to me.
>> ghoch: destination - to serve as destination
>
>or approach a destination of (We are destinationing our
>mission), or seek a destination as yet unfound (We are trying to
>destination the source of that signal), or establish a
>destination (Since we finished our last mission, the Captain
>has had difficulty destinationing our ship), or give coordinates
>to a destination (Helmsman, destination Kronos), or refer to a
>place as a destination (I hereby destination Earth. Ready on
>weapons)...
>
So, you got it! You understand that these things ARE POSSIBLE, although
not necessarily so straightforward or unambiguous.
But many of Marc Okrand's (reH yInjaj! 'ej reH najtaHvIS qeylIS ghomjaj!)
words are also ambiguous and cause you difficulties in use, as I have
remarked during the last month and a half. Many of your (am I already
authorised to say: OUR?) discussions concern THOSE ambiguities.
>There are many
>more interesting things to do with the Klingon language than to
>start off trying to significantly expand the vocabulary
>according to your own personal theories.
Maybe you're right, maybe not. My intention wasn't to "significantly
expand Klingon vocabulary" - I asked you for a tool to use nouns as
verbs. Instead of answering in a Klingon way - Straightforwardly! directly!
without hesitation! YES either/or NOW, you (plural) have chosen
starting mocking at me (not even in the mu'qadveS way) - saying "what could
this or that mean". I was just answering your (plural) questions. I don't
intend to put my own theories behind "many more interesting things" (except
maybe a one or two from time to time }:-{). ).
>> neHmaH: neutral zone - to function as neutral zone
>
>or to approach the neutral zone (Captain, We are Neutral
>Zoning), or to be in the neutral zone (We can't go there! It's
>Neutral Zoned [neutrally zoned?]), or to establish as a neutral
>zone (I'm going to Neutral Zone this planet.)
>
>> tay: ritual - to function as a ritual(stat.) /to make as a ritual (trans.)
>> veng: city - to function as a city/to use as a city/ to make use of a city
> only
>> (to stay all the time in a city).
>
>We really don't need these words. numISmoHlaH neH bIH.
bIjatlh 'e' yImev! I do need them. I expressed my wish. You said it was
sensless. You doubted if it made sens - if they were really possible.
I answered you giving you examples by hazard (not the ones I REALLY needed
badly). Now you confused them and you say: numISmoHlaH!?? bImIS'eghmoH.
>> Qapla'
>>
>> macheq
>
>charghwI'
>--
>reH lugh charghwI' net Sov.
rut lughbe' charghwI'.
Qapla'
macheq
macheq noychoH jembatoQ
=========================================================================
lasciate ogni speranza voi qu'entrate
=========================================================================