tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 04 12:09:38 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Questions as objects (was KLBC: Mole's tale)
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Questions as objects (was KLBC: Mole's tale)
- Date: Tue, 4 Nov 97 13:55:29 EST
[charghwI' vIrurlaw' 'ach ghunchu'wI' jIHtaH. pemISQo'!]
Scott Murphy <[email protected]> writes:
>*** ADDENDUM - In defense of Question as Object usage
>
>You probably noticed that I use the sentence "chay' qaSpu' 'e' luSovbe'".
>I do this, knowing how controversial it is at the moment. However, I
>would argue that users of a language have a right to innovate new usages
>when they can find no other efficient way to say what they mean.
Users of a natural language eventually cause the language to evolve.
However, Klingon is not quite [yet] a natural language. We are merely
studying and trying to learn how to use what we know about it. Adding
"innovative" usages in an attempt to compensate for a perceived lack
in the grammar is rarely a productive endeavor. It's better to make
use of the grammar's strengths instead of dwelling on its weaknesses.
I have noticed that most so-called "innovative" usages are primarily
due to laziness on the part of the person using them. Rather than
thinking through the meaning of a sentence, some people would prefer
instead to warp the language to try a word-for-word translation and
preserve the original vague and muddled phrasing.
There *are* efficient ways to say what you mean here. They aren't
nonexistent just because you didn't find them.
>"-bogh" would certainly not work here, as I am not referencing a noun
>but an action.
You are referencing the method, procedure, process, or way which was
used to cause something to happen. You are not referencing the verb
which relates the occurrence of that action; you are referencing the
noun which identifies the action.
qaSpu'bogh mIw luyajbe'. nab'e' lo'bogh *mole* luSovbe'.
They don't understand the process which has occured. They don't know
the procedure which the mole used. As long as you give up the
original *words*, {-bogh} works just fine to carry the *idea* you
want to express.
>As a linguist I am biased toward descriptive rather than
>prescriptive approaches to grammar. I am also aware of certain things
>which Klingon is missing. I feel that the only way in which Klingon can
>become a fully expressive language is for users of it to innovate
>constructions where they become necessary.
Klingon is already an expressive language. We don't have to add ways
to use any random verb as an adverb in order to get across the idea of
doing something in a particular manner. We don't need to mirror the
subjunctive phrasing of English to speak of hypothetical situations.
We don't require marking of tense on each verb in order to indicate
that an event will take place tomorrow as opposed to having happened
yesterday.
In this case, trying to translate "how it happened" as {chay' qaSpu'}
is neither necessary nor innovative; it is simply a result of your
confusing English question words with relative pronouns. Klingon has
direct equivalents for English's question words, but not for the
similar pronouns.
>Using question words as
>objects of "'e'" constructions is a natural way to express certain ideas.
>If it weren't, nobody would be doing it.
It only *seems* natural because English spells most of its relative
pronouns the same way as it spells its question words. People are
doing it because a) they haven't noticed that question words are not
the same as relative pronouns, or b) they have managed to rationalize
it as following different rules without realizing that they've twisted
the pronoun {'e'} to refer to something other than a complete sentence.
>There exists a possibility that
>Klingon will evolve into two dialects: one based on canon and Okrand's
>explanations, and one based on the actual, practical usage. This isn't a
>bad thing. It simply adds to the flavor of the language, i.e. the
>development of a formal/colloquial dichotomy.
With the small number of people capable of holding an extended
conversation in Klingon at present, any dialectical divergence is
undesirable. If by "actual, practical usage" you mean making it
easier to translate English into Klingon, I disagree strongly!
Language exists to facilitate communication of ideas between people,
not to translate words from another language.
>OK, now I've said my piece.
As have I, for now.
>I submit this translation of a Cherokee legend for corrections and such.
>Thanks.
I defer the analysis of your translation to the Beginners' Grammarian.
-- ghunchu'wI'