tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 01 08:24:31 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hol vIlo' (was Re: Holna' wIlo'bejtaH)
Joel Peter Anderson writes:
>> ...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.
Hol chenmoH pab'e' qar'a'? loQ ram mu'tay.
mu'mey tamlu'chugh ratlh Hol qa'. mu'mey choHmoHlaH De'wI' QIp.
pIm'a' "English" "pig-latin" je? "Ebonics" yIqel je.
But it's the grammar that defines a language. Simply substituting
words doesn't change the nature of the language; that's something
a computer can be programmed to do easily, without requiring any
knowledge of language whatsoever. Is pig-latin a language distinct
from English? It *is* English grammar with other words. How about
Ebonics? According to some, though it uses English words, it has a
distinctly different grammar.
>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.
loQ nIbbe'chugh pab yajHa'qu'chuq.
narghpu' targh jIja' -- chay' choyaj?
QaQbe' chovnatlhvam 'ach nIvbogh latlh vISamlaHbe'.
People sometimes THINK they have communicated, but because of seemingly
minor differences in the rules they come away with completely different
understandings of the ideas discussed. If I told you I wanted to table
this discussion, what would you think I meant? Now let's compare how a
person from the UK interprets the idea as opposed to a person from the
US. It's not a grammatical difference as such, but since I don't know
any creoles or pidgins I can't think of any other good examples.
>> 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?
If you start with a flexible introduction, you do the student a very
great disservice. You place him in the position of having to unlearn
the flexible rules in order to use the language correctly.
If your intent is merely to introduce the language and your goal is
not to use it to communicate with others who already know it, there
is no overwhelming reason to keep things grammatically correct. But
if your intent is to give someone a tool which he can use to talk to
others and carry on meaningful conversations and maybe even compose
a great literary work, then a "flexible introduction" is going to be
a problem very quickly.
>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.
Yes, tlhIngan Hol is a toy language, but my point (see my words) was
that it is not *just* a toy. One can create impressive works of art
using a toy paintbrush, if that brush is used properly.
>> 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.
Usage *does* follow rules. However, the rules of the Klingon language
as spoken in the Star Trek TV shows aren't necessarily the rules of
tlhIngan Hol as we study it here. We know the script writers don't
really care about following the grammar in TKD; I'm not interested in
learning how to speak Klingon according to their preferences.
>> 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.
I apologize for appearing to imply that I was complaining specifically
about you, Joel; I was using the "impersonal" you here.
>> 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.
I don't understand this...if you think it's important, could you try
to explain it?
>> 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?).]
*{maj ram} is NOT known to be common usage. It could just as well be
an inside joke between Kang and Curzon Dax; they're the only ones who
have said it on screen, to each other.
-- ghunchu'wI'