tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 01 10:15:19 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: Hol vIlo' (was Re: Holna' wIlo'bejtaH)

On Saturday, March 01, 1997 12:11 AM, [email protected] on behalf of Joel 
Peter Anderson wrote:

> 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!

Very funny, but I have no idea what he said.  That makes it kinda hard to 
communicate, no?

> > >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.

Sorry, but the "personal grammars" of most people who speak English intersect 
a lot more with my own than your Klingon does with mine.  You tend to advocate 
accepting Klingon constructions which would be unintelligible to a Klingon but 
not to an English speaker.  Where's the logic in that?

And the point isn't to just barely manage to get your point across.  Language 
is to be used to *effectively* and *accurately* express your ideas.  If I have 
trouble understanding you, then we are not effectively communicating.

> > >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?

I believe his intent is to ask if you'd be just as willing to make up 
fictitious constructions in other languages to make them easier for English 
speakers to understand.  That's what you want to do in Klingon.  There *may 
be* other dialects, and other grammars, but WE DON'T HAVE ANY DOCUMENTATION ON 
HOW TO UNDERSTAND THEM.  All we have is a few *possible* (not definite) 
examples from Star Trek, which don't hold any water anyway.

If a fluent speaker of Italian told you you were saying something wrong in 
Italian, would you tell him, "I can do it, it's just another personal 
grammar"?  No!  You'd be wrong, and that's it!

> 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.

But, just because Joel Peter Anderson makes it up doesn't mean it *is* 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.

Then you might be inadvertently giving them occasional false information.  
Better not to teach them yourself than to teach incorrectly!

> > >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.

I tend to agree, but there has been no explanation about the usage given on 
TV.  That {maj ram} thing is nonsense (see below).  The longer lines mean 
absolutely nothing.  How can you determine anything about their usage?

> > 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 think this was meant to be a general "you," not you specifically, Joel.

> > >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.

So, you can communicate with someone who knows both Klingon and English.  
Well, *I* can communicate with someone who knows only Klingon!  (If only there 
were such a person!)  I still hope to someday find someone who speaks Klingon, 
but no other language that I know (that's not hard since I don't know many).

> > 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?).]

And just how do you know that?!?!?  As far as I'm concerned, if we have to 
decide on an explanation for this jibberish, years ago Kurzon Dax was just 
learning Klingon, and got a hold of his version of The Klingon Dictionary, and 
looked up "good" and "night," and decided he could say {maj ram} for 
"goodnight."  Kor, Kang, and Koloth thought this was so funny that it became 
an inside joke.

My explanation is just as reasonable as yours, and it doesn't require making 
up some ridiculous bit of nonsense like {maj ram} being common usage.

(And "goodnight" is, I believe, a shortened form of "Have a good night," which 
is a wish that the person being spoken to experiences a good night, as opposed 
to a bad one.)

> > 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....]

This is another general idea, to illustrate his point.  I'd never heard the 
{-mItlh} thing before, but {puqnI'} is from Glen Proechel, I think.  
ghunchu'wI' isn't trying to attribute these made-up words to you.

>  ** Four thousand non-Okrand words can be used in a night **
>  **      by a laughing Klingon! jItlhaQ! jIHagh!          **

'ej pIj monchugh vay' yIvoqQo'.
Don't trust those who frequently smile.

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97165.6

Back to archive top level