tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 27 14:53:27 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Star Trek Communicator (was Re: KLBC question)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Star Trek Communicator (was Re: KLBC question)
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 17:52:52 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Tue, 17 Sep 1996 19:15:58 -0700 "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]> wrote:
...
> >> Krankor disagreed (perhaps due to his fresh perspective, since he doesn't
> >> have quite the same linguistic training as some others, and isn't hampered
> >> by what to "expect" to see).
>
> >This is an undeserved slam that does not deserve to go unanswered...
...
> Do not presume sarcasm when honesty is also possible.
Point well taken. ASCII can be such a destructive filter.
> >Was Okrand tired and decided just to let this be like other languages?
...
> Who knows? It looks to me like he decided to make Klingon work like other
> languages here, based on this example and also based on the gloss
...
> >Meanwhile, I see the two interpretations as being arbitrary, with only
> >one potential source of confirmation.
>
> Like I said: I didn't have canon. Neither did he. Stalemate (though I
> don't like viewing such discussions as battles that are won and lost;
> that's not a constructive perspective). We each had to accept the other's
> explanation as possible but unproven, as you do. And we did.
And I do.
> >> Now I have. Calling archives "former records" doesn't make much sense
> >> (unless you mean that when something happens, it's first recorded as a
> >> record, and then sometime later becomes something else, ...
>
> >It's not a stretch at all. Archives are processed records, hence the
> >verb "to archive"...
> But in that case, are archives then not records? It would only make sense
> to call them "former records" if what they are now is not records.
Do you call figs "former figs" because they are dried? Do you call fish
on a plate "former fish" because it has been cooked? If we had a separate
word for dried figs or fried fish or Klingon archives (like wheat
becomes bread or cow becomes hamburger) then we would use that separate
term. In some arbitrary cases, we use the same word for the processed
entity as we do for the preprocessed entity and modify it with an
adjective. Whether we use a new word for the processed product or not is
arbitrary. In many languages, the animal to meat transitition happens
without new terminology. You know that.
And sorry for all the food analogs. I'm hungry.
> That
> seems to me a rather narrow interpretation of the word "ta". They may not
> be current records, but they still are records. Also, at least the way
> Krankor said he saw "ngo'" (or more accurately, the way I understood what
> he said), part of the emphasis of "ngo'" was that this thing has been
> replaced by something else, which also doesn't seem to be really operative
> here.
Again, this is arbitrary and we have no examples to prove whether the
Klingon mind makes a distinction between a record and an archive, and if
so, what kind of distinction.
> I wouldn't have brought up the possible explanation if it hadn't come to my
> mind as a way to reconcile Krankor's view with the canon. So obviously I
> can see its merit, or why else would I try to argue with it? It happens
> not to be convincing to me, but your mileage may vary.
Ahhh, to argue!
Ahhh, to eat! jISopmeH jIjaH!
> ~mark
charghwI'