tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 28 16:20:48 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hol vIlo' (was Re: Holna' wIlo'bejtaH)
Joel Peter Anderson writes:
>> Even if the Klingon language is "just a game" to some, games still
>> have rules. When someone breaks the rules, adds his own, or simply
>> interprets them in such a different way from most other people that
>> they might as well not be the same rules, everyone playing the game
>> suffers (with the possible exception of the "cheater").
>
>Oh, fooey. "Suffer"? That is *kind* of a strong word isn't it? ("Cheat"
>isn't the word I'd choose either...)
I think "suffer" is a fine word for what I'm talking about. It's
hard to deduce grammar on the fly when trying to read something that
doesn't match the rules and conventions that have been established.
Hurry-like, meaning-wise as I be with handing you-ish know-ness?
If you want to know what I meant, your understanding suffers.
>Games, like languages, usually have ranges of rules, variations, and, as
>long as they are living, no end of change. Quick, how *many* versions of
>Poker are there, anyway? The deck of cards is constant (generally), but
>the rules, the stakes and players possesses an infinite diversity in
>infinite combinations... (where have I heard that?).
Poker is actually a fine example. When everyone agrees on a set of
rules, the game is quite playable. When one person decides to make
winning easier by declaring all odd-numbered cards wild, things are
not quite as much fun. Poker as an analogy for language in general
works; you can consider variations such as seven-card draw to stand
for specific languages. The range of sounds is constant (generally),
but the grammar, the vocabulary and speakers...you get the idea.
>When I've introduced Klingon, I am often quite flexible in grammar...
Would you be as flexible were you introducing Italian or Greek? I'm
quite serious here -- tlhIngan Hol *is* a language, not just a neat
toy to play with.
>But my KLI card reads "qo'mey poSmoH Hol" - I'm
>more interested in opening the doors to new worlds, than locking them.
The "flexible grammar" that most concerns me is that which permits
one to keep marching to the beat of the English drum while pretending
to have crossed into another world. Open the door, and *step through*.
If you keep insisting that there needs to be an adverb-forming suffix
or a way to mark instrumental case or a simple way to say "I love you"
then you're just looking through the window and you're still standing
firmly in your old world.
>There is tremendous enjoyment, and mental discipline available in working
>with the grammar, and learning the language - I don't disagree with that.
>But, to me, the biggest win is the sense of wonder in introducing the
>language.
If you find that the biggest win occurs when you *start*, you appear
to be missing something fundamental. There's so much more to it than
the mere *possibility* of using another language.
>Especially with kids, the idea of the language - the possibilty of using
>it at ALL, can be *wonderful*. When I've been presented with a story that
>pretty much uses Klingon terms like "coded English", I'll comment briefly
>about that, but then go on to translate it with the author and enjoy the
>effort they put into it. Sure seemed like we *both* won to me. And I
>don't recall any suffering.
As long as the translation was done according to the established
grammar for the language and not by making the rules more "flexible",
that's fine. The suffering I speak of comes when someone proclaims
that, for example, *{maj ram} is grammatically correct usage, or that
the obvious word for "grandchild" is {*puqnI'}, or worse yet makes an
entirely new noun suffix {*-mItlh} to indicate instruments. A person
who speaks or writes using these "rules" causes problems for the rest
of the people who try to understand using the established grammar.
-- ghunchu'wI'