tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 14 05:06:22 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Word Origin Speculation II

Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> >From: Ivan A Derzhanski <[email protected]>
>
> >Note that the subject of the thread is `Word Origin Speculation'.
> 
> [...] note that it is *speculation*, not claiming to be actual fact.

Quite right, but speculation can become annoying if it gets too wild.

> >> Like "Sop" for "sup"...
> >
> >To my mind {Sop} has iconic value, as does {chop}.  [...]
> >A greedy eating sound culminating in the snapping of the jaws.
> 
> I hear it as a slurping sound, actually.

Also good.  {tlhutlh} is one, too.  And {Qong} is a snoring sound.

Dr. Lawrence M. Schoen wrote:
> Ivan wrote:
> 
> > See, Mark, he's speculating about what actually derives from where,
> > not looking for mnemonics (which by definition rest on coincidences).
> 
> Not commenting on the main thrust of your remark, but I don't know what
> definition *you* are working from but (putting my academic hat on for a
> moment) coincidence has nothing to do with how mnemonics function, or
> how they're created.

Of course I don't mean to say that something must be due to a coincidence
in order to have mnemonic value, merely that mnemonics do not claim to be
based on anything more than coincidence, unlike etymologies.

David Trimboli wrote:
> February 13, 1997 10:19 AM EST, jatlh 'Iwvan:
> 
> > > >pI' = fat (pig),
> >
> > Seems bogus to me.  You can prove anything if you settle for just
> > two matching sounds.
> 
> I'd imagine that Okrand would've used {pIgh} for that, but he didn't.

That's just it.  If he wanted a word to be derived from _pig_, I'd like
to think it would be {pIgh}, not {pI'}.

> > > > 'IH = beautiful (ick), [...]
> >
> > So English [k] can correspond to {H} and (presumably) {Q} and {'}
> > as well as {q}.
> 
> No, it's just that English doesn't have the letters to say {'IH}.

Oh, you mean that _ick_ is pronounced [Ix] rather than [Ik] in English?
Now it makes sense.

[re {mIr} `chain' and `Soviet propaganda']
> Whether *Russians* would agree with it is beside the point  It's what
> *Okrand* was thinking that is relevant.  (I don't buy it, myself . . .)

Sure.  I neither know nor care what Russians would think of it; but I
do think that the connexion is too twisted to have occurred to anyone
other than Glen (and to Okrand in particular).

> > I wonder when someone will suggest that {yuD} is derived from the
> > stereotypical Christian perception of Jews.  Or is that too imPC?
> 
> I thought it was {yID}  :-)

{yID} is `be Jewish' (courtesy of HoD Qanqor); {yuD} is `be dishonest'.
yuD Suypu' yID 'e' pIj _Europe_Daq Qublu'.

--'Iwvan

-- 
"reH Sov yInej 'ej Dap yImuS,          <dOstI bA mardom-e dAnA nEkO-st,
 jagh val qaq law' jup QIp qaq puS"     do^sman-e dAnA beh az nAdAn dOst>
                 (Sheikh Muslihuddin Abu Muhammad Abdullah Saadi Shirazi)
Ivan A Derzhanski  <[email protected], [email protected]>
Dept for Math Lx,  Inst for Maths & CompSci,  Bulg Acad of Sciences
Home:  cplx Iztok  bl 91,  1113 Sofia,  Bulgaria

Back to archive top level