tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 31 08:14:47 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: How big is the vocabulary?
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: How big is the vocabulary?
- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 11:14:38 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "TPO" at Mar 30, 98 12:03:04 pm
According to TPO:
>
> I included them in my list also; but the discussion is about determining the
> size of our vocabulary. We may include suffixed words in our lists but how
> should we count them in reference to vocabulary size?
> Should we count ghuHmoH because it was fortunate enough to make it into a
> glossary but not include jejmoH even tho its just as valid a word?
I think it is a matter of logistics. We do not count words. Our
computers count words. Our computers count ENTRIES in our
databases. We put in entries without reference to whether a
word was suffixed or not. We could get a more accurate word
count if we rework our databases to sort out the suffixed words
vs. the unsuffixed words, but even then, we still have issues,
like whether or not to count homonyms as separate words or just
single words with broad meaning. Do we count proper names? And
then, we have to remember special cases, like {lo'laH} which,
despite its appearance, is a root word unto itself so it can be
used adjectivally, unlike other root+laH words.
There is no such thing as an "accurate" word count. Then again,
"A Klingon may be inaccurate, but he is NEVER approximate!" So,
all of us posting numbers of words are living up to the Klingon
spirit!
> MO said many more words could be listed with suffixes but he didn't feel it
> necessary to clearify every combination (plus limited book size). He listed
> the suffixed words that he did for us to use as examples, to make us open
> our minds to how ideas can be expressed by expanding our vocabulary with
> suffixed words.
Well, he had another reason than just to give us samples.
{ghojmoH} is listed because English has a separate word for
"teach" and if you wanted to look up the Klingon word for
"teach" and Okrand didn't include {ghojmoH} in the word list,
you likely would think Klingon didn't have a word for "teach".
You might not, independently, recognize that "teach" is "cause
to learn" and look up the word for "learn".
> DloraH
charghwI'