tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 08 07:19:01 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Joke word - HoSchem
According to [email protected]:
>
> In a message dated 97-07-04 18:29:04 EDT, charghwI' writes:
>
> > > SKI: I posted {Hu'Sov} in the pattern of {leSSov} and ~mark approved it.
> > > However, it cannot be canon because MO has not used it. So far, KLI
> has
> > > proclaimed we cannot extract parts of words. True, or will "clearly
> > > analyzable parts" be allowed to help tlhIngan Hol grow?
> >
> > In TKD, Okrand clearly tells us not to do this. In posts since
> > this, Okrand clearly tells us not to do this. I'm sorry I missed
> > that Okrand approved {Hu'Sov}. Would you mind quoting his
> > approval so I can begin to understand what it is supposed to
> > mean? Right now, I sincerly don't have a clue.
>
>
> Seems you have misread large portions of the abovementioned post. No one
> ever said Okrand even saw this post, let alone approved {Hu'Sov}. Neither
> was it Okrand who quoted "clearly analyzable parts." That's why you cannot
> find the source looking in his writings.
Ahh. So, by misreading ~mark as if it were Marc, I misread
large portions of the abovementioned post.
> The source was this listserv and ~mark just last week.
>
> Fianally, if the language is never to expand it is DEAD.
The language constantly expands. Okrand expands it. You don't.
Is this really that difficult for you to accept?
> mataHmeH maSachnIS
> (TKW) We cannot write Hamlet or any other project of KSRP. We cannot
> translate Jonah, the Psalms, or any other part of the Bible. We do not have
> the words and you will not allow us to construct them. True, {beQwI'} for
> "shelf" in Hamlet is not Okrandian canon. Does this mean KLI should reject
> Hamlet entirely? Not even offer it for sale?
I see a significant difference between the compromises struck
in constructing as significant a work as Hamlet and any efforts
to rip open the language for the personal satisfaction of
augmenting it with no signficant mission except to bypass
Okrand while creating new words. In creating Hamlet many hours
and very talented effort went into minimizing the impact on the
language, and I can safely speak as one of the participants in
that effort that no one in the project would be so bold as to
take any of the compromises made in that document as precedent
for the use of any non-Okrandian vocabulary or grammar. Words
like {beQwI'} were created specifically for Hamlet and are
unlikely to be seen anywhere else and none of us would
encourage their use elsewhere. We have the excuse that it could
be an old, no longer used word and we can spare the modern
language any impact for our having used it.
What YOU do is much different from that which is being done in
these major projects. You want to personally change the
vocabulary and if possible the grammar as well in order to
leave your personal mark on it and to nudge it in a direction
that you would find personally satisfying. That has nothing to
do with the survival of the language, nor even with any
significant degree of change in well-being, except that it is a
step away from the true character of the language: Okrand
created it. It has his humor and his creativity and within the
fragile fabric of its construction, it survives best when not
unnecessarily corrupted by the whims of others.
We seek to understand the language created by Okrand and to
offer our feedback as to areas where it is effective or weak
and then adjust to the changes as Okrand creates them. There
have been quite a few participants on this list who wished to
take over the helm, thanking Okrand for all the work he has
done up to this point, but pointing out that it needed more
attention than he was apparently willing to give it, so some
new person or persons should take over its development. Usually
they wave the "the language must grow in order to survive"
banner.
I'm not impressed. It has steadily grown since it was created
and so far all efforts to usurp Okrand as creator and developer
of the language have been held off quite successfully. If you
really intend to change this, you will likely find yourself in
a very frustrating experience, and at qep'a', you might find
yourself somewhat less happily engaged than most of those
around you.
> Is KLI selling confusing
> material while claiming to use only Okrandian examples of tlhIngan Hol? Now,
> SuStel disagrees with Capt. Krankor, one of the forefathers of the analysis
> of tlhIngan Hol; and, Capt. Krankor apparently has known the language a lot
> longer than SuStel. We need to draw some conclusions.
This is simply not true. We have discussions. Some issues
resolve. Some don't. It is a dynamic environment. There is no
point of resolution when everything is clear. More things
become more clear as time goes on, but the idea that some
arbitrary deadline exists when any particular argument must be
resolved is a bit absurd, though I will say that your very
unpopular position that polysyllabic nouns can be deconstructed
and their elements rearranged to make new words was never a
good argument and if ever there was an issue that deserves to
be resolved, this is it. You really should just move on to
something more substantial.
> In Israel, the
> Language Coinage Bureau is a council (quprIp) which analyzes and discusses
> coinage methods (ja'chuq), then determines and broadcasts the results which
> are acceptable to them. Israeli Hebrew grows thus. Whenever an author coins
> a new word, the Bureau reviews it and publishes its recommendations. What
> did MO mean by <the KLI should take the language and run with it>? I am glad
> we are waiting for clarification from MO. I am glad we are getting new words
> from MO. But, I still want us to be an integral part of developing
> compounds, yea, even complex constructions, from existing stem words.
Why can't you read TKD 3.2.3 on page 20 and understand it?
"There are a good many nouns in Klingon which are two or, less
frequently, three syllables long, but which are not complex
nouns of the types described above. These nouns probably at one
time were formed by combining simple nouns, but one or all of
the nouns forming the complex noun are no longer in use, SO IT
IS NOT POSSIBLE (without extensive etymological research) TO
KNOW WHAT THE INDIVIDUAL PIECES MEAN."
"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."
Is that really all that difficult to understand or to accept?
It is quite explicit and it directly indicates that your
efforts in this mission of yours are poorly thought out. Okrand
directly addresses this issue and tells you right there in the
original edition of TKD that you are wrong and that you should
not do this. How can you ignore this?
> I,
> too, have become much more conservative.
...except in this one place where you are determined to ignore
Okrand's explicit advice.
> One of my tlhIngan Hol students in Westminster, Colorado is an aviatrix. She
> has epitomized the debacle of the current state of lack of technological
> terms in a highly developed technological society by devising the descriptive
> phrase for "flaps": puvbogh jan chungH'amoHmeH 'qoj pepmoHmeH janmey. If we
> have to use such descriptive terms each time, we will not be efficient--a
> quality prized by tlhIngan Hol jatlhwI'pu'.
We can accomplish a very impressive range of expressions using
the scarcely over 1,800 words we now have. I can be patient
with the addition of specialized words for "flaps". So, in the
past week, how many times do you think the people on this list
have suffered for the lack of the word "flaps"?
Has it ever occured to you that perhaps a Klingon Bird of Prey
doesn't HAVE flaps? In fact, I don't remember seeing any movies
or episodes involving any vehicles that required any. And I
don't remember seeing any Kligons holding up umbrellas, either,
so I don't have a lot of sympathy for those begging for THAT
word, EITHER.
> ranting..............
qay'be'. ram.
> peHruS
charghwI'