tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 08 11:22:02 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: bIchuSchoHqu''a'
Alan writes:
> What did you find so interesting about it? I note that you are
> stubbornly clinging to the word which you admit is a very poor match for
> the concept you are trying to translate.
This is not entirely true. All Okrand says is
"parmaq, conventionally translated "love" or "romance" (though the
Klingon concept is far more aggressive than the Federation Standard
translations imply)..."
KGT p. 199 [this is mirrored in the dictionary
section parmaq <-> love, romance]
While the evidence on DS9's episode where we first learned this word
points to the more earthy uses of the word, nothing Okrand has written
really rules out other meanings of the term - just as our English word
"love" is used in quite a variety of ways.
> And we indeed did have this discussion before I asked about your
> signature. We have considered what "love" means several times in the
> past few years. Where were you during those discussions?
Beats me - As I recall, this has often been over the misuse of "bang" for
"love". I frequently don't translate long pure tlhIngan Hol messages,
unless the topic is one in which I'm interested, so maybe I missed it.
> > Another reason I use "parmaq" in the quote is, if-and-when anyone
> > asks about it, it provides an opportunity to discuss the history of
> > par'Mach -> parmaq, the sources for tlhIngan Hol vocabulary, the slow
> > move of tlhIngan Hol from an idolect to language and so forth.
What I mean here is that, within the story of the language, as told by
Marc Okrand, he has referred to Maltz as his informant. Missing
information was dependant on "checking with Maltz". This makes the
language as delineated by Okrand an individual's dialect (Maltz's
idolect). In the real world, when the vocabulary was solely driven by
Okrand it was in a similar way an idolect - but as he has pushed and
prodded the Paramount-isms into a the fabric of tlhIngan Hol, the language
more and more takes on the aspects of a natural language.
> What person is going to ask you about this word without already knowing
> its "history"? And who gives a ****? It looks like you're saying that
> tlhIngan Hol took a long time to become a language. Say what? It was
> something very like a language the moment Marc Okrand thought of it, and
> when The Klingon Dictionary was published, it was most certainly a real
> language.
I often get asked about the odd bits of fluff in my signature. For a
quick answer I supply the meaning as I intended it. If more interest is
there, then I tell about the language and its history. I find people
relate with more interest to the difficulties in finding vocabulary, and
the disagreements over them than just rattling off the consensus of a few
vociferous users of the language.
And I *always* tell my classes: "KLINGON IS A REAL LANGUAGE" - it is
practically the first thing I teach them. (I usually add - not as a
disparagement - "Klingon is as real as Disneyland". Meaning, that while
it is fantasy and fiction, it is a real thing that you can learn and use.)
** joel anderson * [email protected] * [email protected] **
**** Hegh tI, 'ej ngab tI naH, 'ach reH taHtaH joH'a'ma' mu'****
**"The grass withers, and the flowers fade, but the word of our **
** God stands forever." Isaiah 40.8 NLT** http://umn.edu/~joela **