tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 19 07:11:49 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

More from Okrand




SuStel posted some choice pieces from the MSN posting from Okrand.  
There's more, and since I have access to it from work ;), I'll post it now.

BTW, he commented on /jeq/ "protrude from" (kudos to *taD, who first 
posted this find!), but not on /yeb/ or the other MSN words yet, or some 
of the other questions posted there.  Hopefully, soon!

Okay, here's the post from Okrand on compound nouns.  Sorry, much of this 
is a repeat of what SuStel posted, but I think it'd be worthwhile to see 
his comments in their entirety:

---

"Marc Okrand" <[email protected]> wrote in article <01bc7c67$7acd93a0$3a352299@marcokra>...
> 
> You raise a lot of interesting issues in this posting!  To comment on
> everything you talk about would take me a while, so, for the sake of
> writing back sooner rather than later,  I figured I'd comment on a few of
> the ideas you bring up and leave the others for another time.
> 
> Ken Traft wrote:
> 
> > In The Klingon Dictionary (TKD), Dr. Okrand seems to indicate that TKD is
> > only a  beginning and would serve as a guideline for using the language. 

  Okrand:
> I think that's fair.  The Klingon Dictionary was always intended to be an
> introduction to the language, not the last word.  At the very least, it's
> hardly unabridged!  Even with the addition of the other books and the
> tapes, there is still a great deal about the language that is not yet
> described adequately.   But we (all of us!) are working toward that end.
> 
> > There seems to be more questions than answers sometimes.

  Okrand:
> I guess that's to be expected in any introductory work.

[ some hypothesis deleted...]

> > QongDaq would seems to be a "compound" noun-noun construction, but in The
> > Klingon Dictionary, Qong is a verb and is not listed as a noun.  I would
> > say we should go with the positive.  Consider these "compound words". 
> They
> > seem to use a verb-noun construction, e.g., lupDuj (shuttlecraft -
> > transport ship), vutpa' (galley - cooking  room), QongDaq (bed - sleeping
> > place), HIvDuj (attach fighter),  etc.  These words are a small sampling
> of
> > the many "two-syllable" words that make sense to both their "single
> > syllable" components.
> > . . .
> > 
> > According to the rules of grammar, QongDaq could be a normal compound
> noun
> > equation and it MAKES sense to interpret Qong as a noun in a noun-noun
> > construction for "bed".  Also using pa' (room) we have vutpa'.  vut is a
> > verb in  TKD, but it would make sense to interpret vut as a noun in the 
> > noun-noun construction vutpa'.

  Okrand:
> You're right: QongDaq "could be a normal compound noun" -- but the
> important word there is "could":  It could be a compound noun IF both Qong
> and Daq are nouns.  We know that Daq "place" is a noun; we know that Qong
> is a verb ("sleep"); we don't know that Qong (presumably "sleep" or
> "sleeping") is a noun.   Maybe it is -- but until we see it as a noun in
> its own right (that is, in a place in a sentence where nouns occur and in a
> construction where it's not attached to Daq) will we know for sure.  Until
> that time, it's a good hypothesis, but not a done deal.
> 
> > We know verbs can be used as nouns  (not necessarily all...)

  Okrand:
> I think we'll have to agree to disagree about this one.  While you are
> right that there are a number of noun-verb pairs (that is, nouns and verbs
> with similar or related meanings that are phonetically identical), such as
> HoS "strength"/"be strong" and poj "analysis"/"analyze," I don't think it's
> necessarily the case that, for example, the verb HoS "be strong" is being
> used as a noun (meaning "strength").   By the same token, I don't think
> it's the case that the noun HoS "strength" is being used as a verb (meaning
> "be strong").  This may be what happened historically (that is, in an older
> stage of the Klingon language, there may have been a verb HoS which people
> started using as a noun, or there may have been a noun HoS which people
> started using as a verb), but, right now, all we can say is that there is a
> pair of words.  We don't know which developed from which (or if either or
> both developed form something else).   Though the pairs exist and cry out
> for explanation, until there is more study on the matter, I don't think one
> can argue that Klingon verbs (even if we're only talking about a small set
> of verbs) can be used as nouns (or vice versa).  (English is different.  I
> think it is fair to say that in English virtually any noun can be used as a
> verb.  There are so many instances of words that were once nouns being used
> as verbs that if someone uses a noun as a verb for the first time, people
> will probably make sense out of it.  "Is it better to Kirk the enemy or to
> Picard them?"  If you ask that question, I suspect you'll get people's
> opinions about dealing with foes as much as or more than you'll get puzzled
> expressions.  Some folks will reject such a construction.  But they haven't
> been impacted by Star Trek yet.)

[Holtejvo':]

There you have it, boys and girls.  Verbs are not nouns.  Go figure.

> > and Dr. Okrand continues to give us nouns that were once verbs (wov was
> clearly used in
> > the Hallmark commercial as a noun).

  Okrand:
> I haven't seen the commercial in a while, but I don't think wov was used as
> a noun there.  Though the Klingons in the ad may have ad libbed a bit, the
> phrase the one Klingon was supposed to say regarding the little lights in
> the Bird of Prey ornament was:
> 
> 	wovmoHbogh janHommey
> 
> That is, "little devices that cause (something) to be light or bright" or
> "little devices that brighten (something)" or "little devices that light
> (something) up" or the like.   wov is a verb "be light, bright" followed by
> the suffix -moH "cause" (thus, "cause to be light").
> 
> >  *I'm* not making Qong or vut a noun on my own but taking Dr. Okrand's
> words and TKD 
> >  to make a valid logical inference.

  Okrand:
> Again, you're right.  You are making a logical inference.  I think I'd
> argue, however, that the inference is historical.  That is, a word like
> QongDaq is evidence that at an earlier stage in the language, there may
> have been a noun Qong (meaning "sleep" or something similar).   Or maybe
> there was a verb suffix -Daq meaning "place where one does X."  On the
> other hand, you may have uncovered evidence that there is currently a noun
> Qong -- it just hasn't been attested anywhere else yet, so we should keep
> our eyes peeled.  But without further evidence, it's a guess.
> 
> > Personally, I'd like to see a special rule allowing -Daq and -pa' to be
> > added to verbs like -wI'. It would definitely allow a larger  use of
> > existing words without having to add new ones.  Verb suffix -Daq would
> mean
> > "a localized place or location" giving us: QongDaq for sleeping place or
> > bed, Qongpa' for sleeping room or bedroom, SuvDaq for fighting place or
> > rink or mat, Suvpa' for fighting room or gym, vutDaq for cooking place or
> > stove or hearth, tamDaq for quite place or meditation area, tampa' for
> > quite room or sound proof room, qetDaq for running place or track, qetpa'
> > for running room or indoor track, SopDaq for eating place or dining room
> > table or kitchen table, Soppa' for eating room or dining room or food
> > court, yItDaq for walking place or sidewalk or walking track or path,
> > yItpa' for walking room or indoors walking track, DIlDaq for pay for
> place
> > or sales counter or cash register location, DIlpa' for pay for room or
> toll
> > booth, etc.

  Okrand:
> Indeed, if -Daq and -pa' were verb suffixes (following the "special rule"
> you refer to), there could be a lot more nouns.  On the other hand, even
> without these new suffixes, you can use existing vocabulary and grammar to
> say (with phrases rather than single words) the same thing:  SopmeH pa' 
> (literally "room in order to eat" or "room for eating," from Sop "eat" plus
> -meH "in order to") is a reasonable way to say "eating room" or "dining
> room."   I also don't think Klingons, not being prone to stand on ceremony
> where eating is concerned,  would object to eating breakfast in something
> called a  'uQ pa' "dinner room," a common-type noun-noun construction.
> 
> > Dr. Okrand says he doesn't have all the answers (but heaven know he can 
> > "make them up").  From the feel of his comments on this list, I believe
> he
> > wants us to take Klingon and run with it a bit.  He seems to be sitting
> > back waiting for this.  I think that if we just sit around "waiting for
> Dr.
> > Okrand" to say "yeah or nay" we are doing him a disservice and stifling
> the
> > growth of the language. I would hope it helps him in seeing what will
> make
> > Klingon a "popular" language and I hope that is what he wants.

  Okrand:
> I do hope people "take Klingon and run with it a bit" and I do want to see
> people's ideas.  There's a still a lot about Klingon that we don't know,
> and it's through
> conversations like this one that we can learn more.
> 
> Thanks for some stimulating thoughts.  Keep the comments coming!

Quite a long piece!  I hope we can keep some lively interaction going 
with Marc, without wearing him down!

--Holtej


Back to archive top level