tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 03 08:53:09 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: New Words - magic, magician
jIyaj
bIlugh
chalogh Qagh Qo'
(I won't do it a second time.)
David Trimboli wrote:
>
> jatlh Jim LeMaster:
>
> > > > chambe'cham = magic (no-technology technology)
> > > >
> > > > chambe'chamwI' = magician (no-technology technician)
> > > >
> > > > I realize from the notes this morning that the absolutely correct form
> > > > of no-technology could be chamHa', but, again, I am exterpolating from
> > > > chamwI' (technician - one who does technology) that cham is actually a
> > > > verb-form, making the correct form chambe' for no-technology or
> > > > technology-not.
> > >
> > > No way. You can't do this. {chamwI'} is a noun, but there's no verb
> {cham}.
> > > You cannot extrapolate like this. If anyone could make up words like
> this,
> > > pretty soon no one would be able to understand anyone else. I, for one,
> would
> > > have no clue about what {chambe'cham} was supposed to mean.
> >
> > I am sorry, but beginner or not, I do NOT see where you are coming from
> > here! There is a known word "technician" but no real word for
> > "technology". A noun is often made (most often made) from taking the
> > verb or noun form and adding -wI' (one who does/uses X).
>
> Incorrect. The {-wI'} suffix DOES mean "one who does/one who is," but it does
> NOT mean "one who uses." It even seems to make sense, but it's just not the
> case.
>
> Words like {De'wI'}, {jonwI'}, and {chamwI'} just have to be accepted as nouns
> which are inviolate. Perhaps they have a derivation in the Old Klingon of
> long ago, but those forms are long forgotten. Correct, modern Klingon has no
> known noun suffix {-wI'} meaning "one who uses." And if you decide to make
> one up, then how do you expect to ever communicate with anyone? I certainly
> wouldn't understand what you were saying.
>
> > With a
> > new/growing language, the only ways to produce new words are:(1) make
> > them up of whole cloth;
>
> Only Okrand can do this. If anyone else could, the language would suddenly
> splinter into a hundred mutually unintelligible dialects, and no one would be
> able to use it anymore. It'd die.
>
> > (2) combine known to form new {i.e. the way that
> > modern German does};
>
> Just because it happens in German doesn't mean it must happen in Klingon. And
> Klingon DOES have ways to form new, never before seen words: adding suffixes.
>
> > and (3) to take a known and extrapolate from it.
>
> The same problem as in (1). What makes you think I'm going to agree with your
> extrapolation? What makes you think I would even understand it? The ONLY
> reason I understood your {chambe'cham} word was because you explained it to me
> in English. If you cannot tell me something in Klingon such that I
> understand, then you're not communicating.
>
> > I do NOT see that I broke any grammarian rules. I would bow to greater
> > knowledge/or wholesale opinion about my theory that "cham" was either a
> > noun or verb, but not that I "broke the rules" in its creation!
>
> If you like, I can get ~mark to tell you it's not a word. Where in TKD do you
> find anything to suggest that you can just break things apart like that? Even
> Okrand rarely makes new forms, and he's got the RIGHT to make new forms.
>
> The challenge here is not to make the language better, it's to be able to
> communicate any concept you want in it. I can assure you, Klingon can handle
> most concepts already. There are a few flaws and gaps, but that's why Okrand
> does things like publish new books and post to MSN (when his computer is
> working). Sooner or later we may get a word for "table," but I'm not going to
> be the one to suppose that I can make it up. I can't.
>
> > > > I also toyed with the idea of Clarke's Theorem (Any technology,
> > > > sufficiantly advanced becomes indistinguishable from magic) and use
> > > > cham'Itlh for magic and cham'Itlhwi' for magician, but I like the sound
> > > > of chambe'cham and chambe'chamwI' better. They sound like magic
> > > > incantations already.
> > >
> > > Now you're not only pulling apart word elements illegally, you're also
> making
> > > a verb compound, which is not permitted either.
> > ---see aboove for my opinion on "pulling apart word elements illegally."
> > ????? Why are compound verbs illegal? My TKD, though not memorized,
> > doesn't seem to support this allegation!
>
> It CERTAINLY doesn't support the creation of verb compounds, does it? Why is
> there an entire section devoted to how to make noun compounds, but not one for
> verbs?
>
> Finding what seem to be compound verbs in the vocabulary is not good enough.
> For all we know, these words were the product of language evolution. The rule
> we must all live by is, "Only Okrand can compound verbs." Live with it like a
> Klingon!
>
> > > "Magic" is one of those words which we have no good translation for. Who
> > > knows? Maybe Klingons never believed in magic? They did kill their gods
> off,
> > > after all . . . This might explain why there are no words for it. Then
> > > again, it's possible that the research just hasn't uncovered this concept
> yet.
> > To this is say - MY RESEARCH HAS UNCOVERED SEVERAL POSSIBLITIES!
> > Just the speeches about "crossing the River of Blood" hints at a whole
> > rich tapestry of Klingon myth, legend and 'superstition' not touched
> > upon at this time.
>
> I don't see what crossing the River of Blood has to do with magic. There can
> be myths and legends without magic. The most "magical" feat I can think of
> right now is Kahless forging his {betleH}, and that's not even strictly
> magical; something impossible is not described, only something greatly
> exaggerated.
>
> --
> SuStel
> Beginners' Grammarian
> Stardate 97169.9