tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 28 21:03:14 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hol vIlo' (was Re: Holna' wIlo'bejtaH)
On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, Alan Anderson wrote:
> Joel Peter Anderson writes:
> >> Even if the Klingon language is "just a game" to some, games still
> >> have rules.
> Hurry-like, meaning-wise as I be with handing you-ish know-ness?
> If you want to know what I meant, your understanding suffers.
Actually, that was kind of interesting. Do it again! With enough practice
you could sound like Yoda!
> >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.
We're stretching the analogy here, I think. You're using poker variations
as different languages, when I meant grammars. People communicate because
their personal grammars intersect enough that they can communicate, even
if they don't use the identical rule set. The consensual grammar, whether
it matches the ideal one, is large enough that they can "play the game"
meaningfully.
> >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.
Sure. Why not? If I were versed in those languages enough to
present phrases for a traveler, or some such, why not start with a
flexible introduction? What is your intent?
Of course tlhIngan Hol is a toy - a wonderful one. And it is a real
language as well. As I say, "just because Disneyland is a made up place
doesn't mean it isn't real.
IF I were introducing, say Greek (I have never studied Italian) I wouldn't
plan or try to teach fluency - that isn't my level of ability. But I'd be
happy and able to introduce sounds, alphabet, vocabulary. I'd probably be
doing using it to show how to use Biblical refernce materials, so I'd aim
the class and the instruction there.
> >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*.
Um - remember me? I thought I *HAD*. I'm the one who likes to pretend
the Paramount Hol IS canonical? I don't worry about precisely following
one interpreter's version (however worthy) of the tlhIngan Hol. I think
the codification of the language is important, but one cannot ignore the
usage - which doesn't always follow the rules.
> 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.
Uh? What? I never said any of those things.
> >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.
Sorry - I translated it by pretending to be a Klingon who knew enough
English to figure out what was meant. Oh well, we endured somehow.
> The suffering I speak of comes when someone proclaims
> that, for example, *{maj ram} is grammatically correct usage, or that
'oy! The pain! The pain!
["maj ram" isn't 'grammatical', it is just common usage. Like "good
night" (What does that mean?).]
> 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.
Ooops - you appear to be talking to someone else again. [You'd think
that one Anderson would be able to keep track of another one....]
> -- ghunchu'wI'
Joel. Just a ghunwI' ....
** Four thousand non-Okrand words can be used in a night **
** by a laughing Klingon! jItlhaQ! jIHagh! **
** [email protected]* [email protected] **
** [email protected] **http://members.aol.com/JPKlingon **