tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 30 10:44:41 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: maHagh tlhInganpu' (was:Klingon words for "subject"...)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:03:55 -0800 (PST)
>From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
>Date: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 2:21 PM
>Subject: Re: maHagh tlhInganpu' (was:Klingon words for "subject"...)
>
>
>>I can only repeat again "Not always." I can easily envision situations
>>in which the speaker needs to clearly identify who "you" is in an
>>utterance (as in picking a subset out of a larger group) or when the
>>speaker might want to distinguish between an inclusive and exclusive
>>"we".
>
>One of the things I find most convincing in an argument is when the
>statement "This construction would have to be used in certain situations" is
>true. If you can think of a situation where you'd need this construction
>and I can't come up with a different one, then I'll definitely think higher
>of your construction.
>
>This is not to say I don't accept logical proofs. But in this matter we've
>exhausted all of the logical proofs, and I haven't changed my mind.
>Besides, if you can stump me, it will convince me that there's a deficiency
>in the grammar somewhere. There shouldn't be too much of that, as Klingon
>is [in our fiction of a Klingon culture] a fully-expressive natural
>language.
I'm leery of accepting this sort of argument too readily. Sure, on the
whole I'd rather be conservative, but "if I can think of another way to
say it, it doesn't belong in the language" doesn't make sense either. I
don't really NEED "ghorgh" when I can say "qaStaHvIS nuq", right? And I
can ask ".... nuq 'oH meq'e'?" instead of "qatlh", can't I? So these words
aren't NEEDED. But Klingon isn't about being as spare as possible (there
are other conlangs for that). It's a language, a living one, and it's as
likely to have redundancies as any other.
The only thing to go on here is instinct, I guess, and the rules we have.
ter'eS is right that "it goes against my instincts" is not always the most
helpful argument around, mainly because there's no way to respond to it.
But it is somewhat helpful. It happens that according to MY instincts,
"maHagh Hoch" *is* okay (though perhaps some other examples aren't). So
there you have it, instinct vs. instinct. One thing I'm finding
particularly bothersome is that these sorts of discussions start to sound
like shouting matches. It's not a matter of who has which instincts, nor
even whose instincts are more trustworthy, but who can sound most confident
in his/her statement of them. Since I, by nature, tend to be inclusive and
aware of differing opinions when I state my own, I can't possibly compete
with more assertive statements out there. Does that make me wrong? "I say
this because I'm absolutely positive I'm right," indeed. You may be, but
that doesn't make you any more right.
"maHagh tlhInganpu'" does sounda bit marked to me... but *marked*, not
*wrong*. "We Klingons laugh" is also a little marked, in English (though
maybe not as much). But there's a long way between "marked" and "wrong."
Moreover, sometimes "marked" is what you WANT; it's not necessarily always
a negative.
>>>1. It is definitely unnecessary.
>>>
>>This argument I consider irrelevant. The only person who can make
>>decisions about what the language needs or doesn't need is Okrand.
>>You may consider something unnecessary, but that doesn't negate the
>>possibility of its existence. I often think mosquitos are unnecessary,
>>but that doesn't make them go away.
>
>The argument is not irrelevant. Klingon is not a language filled with
>redundancies or irrelevancies.
Sure it is. I could find circumlocutions to avoid a whole bunch of what
Klingon does. Just as we keep pointing out that hairy relative clauses
could be avoided by using two sentences, I could say the same thing about
ALL relative clauses. We don't actually NEED the -bogh suffix, we can
"find a way" to say it elsewise. But Klingon has a more compact way to say
it. Why is that so only here, and not with other "redundancies"? How can
we know?
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBNIG0C8ppGeTJXWZ9AQEMnAMAhoHM00y05vZKfw7BaKn8blOL5//+VLS3
mYDx+wI+htyyGz2G0kcfnKXrXP1KRvc8r5485duFXqd0biBQvYcFup3JzACV4Fib
Y3bHyBEVzUKlrrwPadm5YI63yfqII82P
=cXSY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----