tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 13 21:52:54 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: SopDaq
"Kenneth Traft" <[email protected]> writes:
>Let me try again.
Certainly. I'm as ready to debate this as I was before.
>...
>Dr. Okrand spoke about some "unusual compound words" in TKD
>3.2.3 (YES he uses them as COMPOUND WORDS).
>
> For example, <<'ejDO'>> means 'starship'. The syllable
> <<'ej>> also occurs in <'ejyo'> 'Starfleet'. There are, however,
> no known Klingon words <<'ej>>, <<Do'>>, or <<yo'>> that
> have anything to do with 'Starfleet', 'starships', the 'Federation',
> or 'space vehicles' of any kind. It is quite likely that <<Do'>>
> is an Old Klingon word for 'space vessel' (the modern Klingon
> word is <<Duj>>) that is used nowhere except in the noun
> <<'ejDo'>>. Of course, without further study, that remains
> pure conjecture.
>
>The key phrase here seems to indicate the these "confusing words"
>are from "Old Klingon" combinations.
That's quite a bit stronger than how *I* read the "key phrase"! Look
at it again -- it says "quite likely", not "is." And the last words
are "...pure conjecture." It merely supposes that some "compounds"
might be made of nouns that are no longer used. If I take *anything*
from this in the way of rules I can apply, it is that I am *not* able
to pull compound words apart willy-nilly!
> We should be able to take
>known words that make sense as "good" examples and if they don't
>we can wait around for Dr. Okrand to give us the single "word"
>and it's meaning to bring it all together.
Who (besides Okrand) is to decide what words "make sense" in this way?
Why should we agree that what one person wants to do is correct, if it
doesn't go along with any of the rules in TKD?
>Go with the positive not the negative...
[I'll address this in a moment.]
>...and learn from words like lupDuj...vutpa'...QongDaq...HIvDuj...,
>etc. These words are a small sampling of the many "two-syllable"
>words that make sense to their "single syllable" components, but...
They don't make the same *kind* of sense, though. {lupDuj} is a
ship which transports, but {vutpa'} isn't a room which cooks.
{QongDaq} is a place where someone sleeps, but {HIvDuj} isn't a
ship where someone attacks. What's the general rule behind them,
even assuming there is one? Are they noun-noun compounds using
words that are no longer used as nouns, or are they verb-noun
compounds using some as-yet-unknown production rule? Are they
perhaps simply lexicalized contractions of longer phrases, like
{qa'meH}? {lupbogh Duj} -> {lupDuj}, {vutmeH pa'} -> {vutpa'},
and so forth. But there's no rule we know of that lets us do
this sort of thing at will.
If you want to talk about a dining room, why do you insist on
pretending that {Sop} is a noun instead of simply using the
completely legal and understandable {SopmeH pa'}?!!
>because there isn't a "noun" entry for in TKD many of the "learned
>Klingonists" within the KLI make "petty" arguments (and the
>mailing list is full of them). They choose to ignore them and say
>that if they don't make sense they should be left alone, wait for
>Okrand to rule on it.
I don't see how refusing to impose our own rules on the language
can be considered petty! If the words don't make sense as noun
compounds, then they're probably not noun compounds. Since we do
not know how, or even whether, we can make verb-noun compounds,
it's not very useful to debate whether that's what they are either.
>Such an attitude doesn't grow the language but stifle it.
What about the language do you think needs "growing"? If you're
having problems expressing certain concepts, you shouldn't worry
about expanding the language. You should worry about expanding
your ability to use the language as it exists! As you said, go
with the positive, not the negative. Use what we know; say what
we can say! Don't fidget about the lack of a way to indicate an
unambiguous hypothetical; there are other ways to express that
something didn't happen. Don't get frustrated because you can't
translate "I scratched myself with a paperclip" directly; say it
the way the language *wants* to say it!
It works both ways, too. It's not easy to translate the sentence
{Daqoplu'pu'chugh bIghIQHa'nISbej} directly from Klingon into
English, but its meaning is perfectly clear in Klingon. I, for
one, don't think we need to add a verb "unvacation" to English
based on the obviously understandable {ghIQHa'} in Klingon. By
the same token, I don't see a need to claim that {*vuSleq} has to
be valid Klingon just because I know what "limit switch" means in
English.
>Throughout TKD, Dr. Okrand told us that TKD was only a
>beginning. There seems to be more questions than answers. I
>believed that because TKD was written as an ENGLISH to
>KLINGON book. The use of ENGLISH equivalents should allow
>us to use it with "common" English definitions (which I confess
>has not always been the case).
This is a belief that I do not share, and I will in fact continue
to debate against any attempt to make Klingon into a language for
easily translating English.
Klingon is not English. It doesn't have the same rules. It does
not have the same grammatical tools. It *should* not have the
same grammatical tools -- we shouldn't try to use English grammar
and vocabulary as a model for extending Klingon!
>I was TRYING earlier to say that, when "compound" words seem
>to make sense we should use them. <<QongDaq>> would be a
>normal compound noun equation and MAKES sense to take
><<Qong>> as a noun in a noun-noun construction for "bed". Also
>using <<pa'>> (room) we see <<vutpa'>>. <<vut>> is a verb in
>TKD, but it would make sense to put <<vut>> as a noun in the
>noun-noun construction <<vutpa'>>.
By this argument, {nen} makes sense as a noun meaning "ascension"
and {Do'} makes sense as a noun meaning "beings", right? Sorry,
I don't buy it.
>Verbs can be used as nouns
>(not necessarily all, but I believe Dr. Okrand will eventually need
>to go in that direction) and Dr. Okrand continues to give us nouns
>that were once verbs (and you like it or not <<wov>> was clearly
>used in the Hallmark commercial as a noun). *I'm* not making
><<Qong>> or <<vut>> a noun on my own but taking Dr. Okrand's
>words and TKD to make a valid logical inference.
You're *ignoring* Okrand's words in TKD! You quoted them yourself:
"Of course, without further study, that remains pure conjecture."
>Personally, I'd like to see a special rule allowing <<-Daq>> to be
>added to "verbs" like <-wI'>>. It would definitely allow a larger
>use of existing words without having to add new ones...
Your personal wishes are irrelevant. We're certainly not going to
add another type 9 verb suffix just because you'd like it. Such a
use of {-Daq} wouldn't do anything to explain {lupDujHom}, anyway;
what rule will you pull out of your hat to handle that word?
>*** NOTE ***** My ideas and opinions ***** NOTE ***
>*** NOTE ***** My ideas and opinions ***** NOTE ***
As if what you wrote before *wasn't*?
>I don't believe that anyone expected Klingon to take off the way it
>did. As I've said many times before, TKD seems to have been
>written to give general guidelines and allow the "purchaser" the
>ability to take the ENGLISH language and make "educated
>guesses" and bring their understanding of ENGLISH language
>principles to bear and "HAVE FUN" with the language.
QI'yaH baQa' ghuy'cha'!
This goes to the very heart of our disagreement. The Klingon language
has *nothing* to do with English! (Recognizing of course the linguistic
puns that are obvious only to an English speaker.) Klingon has its own
grammar and its own usage and its own vocabulary . It was created with
a set of rules that are in large part *not* like English.
>The Klingon Language is not some " Holy Grail" to be used by a
>few "stodgy minded purists" who want to make it into something
>that is incomprehensible to the general public. It would be to
>Paramount's interest to make it easier to use and "closer" to it's
>Terran derivatives for it's MONETARY APPEAL. Generally
>people have lives and don't have time to sit and pour hours and
>days and weeks into learning a language that it too difficult. They
>are the majority and they are the ones that put out the money. So
>saying, Klingon will become a "popular language" only if it's easier
>to use. Making something *alien* doesn't mean that it needs to be
>difficult.
*sigh* Klingon is a lot less difficult than most natural languages!
Its rules are few; its grammar is simple. Compared to English, it's
a toy language. Well-crafted Klingon -- by which I mean Klingon that
was written using the rules and examples in Okrandian canon -- is most
often trivially easy to read and understand. But stuff that is written
using word-for-word translation of English idioms is almost impossible
for me to read unless I first translate it into English.
>And "when push comes to shove" PARAMOUNT will win no
>matter what I or anyone else thinks will happen or what I or
>anyone else wants to happen.
If Paramount wins by turning Klingon into English with different words,
everyone who's interested in Klingon as a language loses.
>*** END NOTE ***** ***** END NOTE ***
>*** END NOTE ***** ***** END NOTE ***
>
>Dr. Okrand doesn't have all the answers (but heaven know he can
>"make them up"). I believe he wants us to take Klingon and run
>with it a bit.
You state this *after* your "my ideas and opinions" section? wejpuH.
My belief is that the language exists and we can use it as it is. If
there's a particularly vexing issue (c.f. "the ship in which I fled")
then we can debate it among ourselves as long as we want, but usually
we won't be able to resolve it -- otherwise it wouldn't be so vexing!
In the end, it's still Marc Okrand's language. For someone to modify
it to fit personal preferences is highly presumptious and does a great
dishonor to its creator.
>He seems to be sitting back waiting for this and if we
>just sit around "waiting for Dr. Okrand" to say "yeah or nay" we
>are doing him a disservice and stifling the REAL growth of the
>language. On the MSN bulletin board he wanted IDEAS. He
>made the appeal on a GENERAL BULLETIN BOARD for them. I
>would hope it helps him in seeing what will make Klingon a
>"popular" language and I hope that is what he wants.
So far as I know, the Microsoft Network is *not* a "general bulletin
board" -- one must pay money in order to subscribe to it specifically.
I don't have access to MSN, and I don't think very many of the people
who subscribe to this mailing list do either. I can't give Dr. Okrand
my ideas except through HolQeD, which I believe he reads, or through an
occasional "KLI wish list" which I might be able to add to. But still,
I don't think applying English biases to the usage of Klingon is going
to make Klingon a better language.
--
Alan Anderson, professional programmer and amateur Klingonist
proud member of the Klingon Language Institute since 1995
qo'mey poSmoH Hol -- language opens worlds -- http://www.kli.org/