tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 10 19:58:30 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {mup} KLBC
ja' peHruS:
><< Unfortunately, we are left a bit to our own interpretation,
> considering the paucity of {mup} examples. >>
>
>But are we allowed to interpret anything on our own...
With some of the *vocabulary* never having been observed in use, we are
forced to make our best guess as to how to use it. Occasionally, we do
the "logical" thing -- assuming {Dub} is intransitive because {DubmoH}
easily would yield the transitive meaning, for instance -- but are then
contradicted by later canon.
But there's almost no room for interpretation of the *grammar*. It has
been spelled out in detail for us with *very* few ambiguous areas, most
of which have been addressed as further information is made available.
>... at least while under the
>extremely narrow conservativeness of KLI's current BG, SuStel.
I agree wholeheartedly with SuStel's "conservativeness", at least when
applied to teaching people the language. Sticking to the simple rules
and not trying to reach into uncertain territory is a very appropriate
attitude for beginning students and their instructors.
> Perhaps we
>can only wait for examples from MO. Before, we even created a translation of
>Hamlet; now we are told to follow only previously viewed examples from
>"canon."
"We" are even now translating _MacBeth_ and _Much Ado About Nothing_.
I would hope that the translators and editors are following as many of
Okrand's examples as they can and not inventing their own ways of doing
things!
Maybe we're using different meanings of "follow examples"? I happen to
think that following examples is the only way to be sure of having what
I say come out correctly. For instance, I'm not very likely to use the
verb {QoD} until I know more about what it's supposed to mean. :-)
-- ghunchu'wI'