tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 19 12:29:47 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qama'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: qama'
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 15:28:41 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
qun qon charghwI' neH net Sov. You seem to be trying to rewrite
history here.
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:24:05 -0800 (PST) [email protected]
wrote:
> In a message dated 2/19/1999 9:25:36 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> << What logic? Yes, {-DIch} *is* a number suffix. {'ar}, however, is
> not a number, so there is no logic whatsoever in putting them
> together. It looks like you're taking the existence of the question
> word {'arlogh} as opening a door for putting number suffixes on
> everything. One might as well take the existence of words like
> {botjan} and {Saqjan} as blanket permission to tack {jan} on any verb,
> but until there is an "official" description of something like that,
> it's just unsupported speculation. The issue I see here is that it's
> unproven, not likely to be understood, and completely unnecessary.
> >>
>
>
> Ah, but filling the holes with cement, even when we must yet invent the mortar
> to hold together the bricks, is valuable.
You have long said this and generally marginalized yourself for
having done so. We've said for years that only Okrand creates
vocabulary. Period. No exceptions. You've tried to make
exceptions for years and have consistently failed.
> KLI members have long held a
> reputation for discussin, arguing, filling in holes in the Klingon language.
These holes never include new vocabulary.
In this instance specifically, for myself, I wanted {'arlogh}
or some equivalent meaning through vocabulary, idiom or
grammatical construction. It made sense, not "because {'ar} is a
number". {'ar} isn't a number. It just made sense because "How
many" was a question we had no way to ask and a new question
word like {'arlogh} was what was needed to ask that question.
{'arlogh} is not {'ar + logh}. It is a whole new word. The parts
look familiar, but {-logh} is a number suffix, not a question
word suffix, and {'ar} is a question word, not a number, so
clearly {'arlogh} can't be a root word {'ar} plus a suffix
{-logh}.
You have made the meritless assumption that {'arlogh} must be
the root word {'ar} with the suffix {-logh} and expanded on that
to say, "If {'ar} can take {-logh}, then it must be able to take
{-DIch}, too." Well, your assumption is wrong. {'arlogh} is not
a composite. It is a whole new word whose syllables resemble
a familiar question word and a familiar number suffix.
It's like hearing the English word "label" and making up a story
about how it came from a special kind of bell used in the church
by laypersons. A lay bell was used outside the church to
indicate what kind of service was about to be performed inside
the church, so that became the word we now use for "label" to
tell us something about what it is inside the container
the label is attached to that we would not otherwise know about
before we opened the bottle, can or box it is attached to. And
since that's how we got the word label, you should recognize the
English word "ladrum", which obviously means "inexpensive
label". Drums were cheaper to make than bells, you see...
> At the same time, we have a specific prohibition against putting a verb and a
> noun together to make a new noun. MO has done it a lot. But, he claims that
> the so-called verb part really is a noun that has fallen out of use or we
> don't know how to use it in current Klingon.
You just made that up. Okrand does not claim that the so-called
verb part really is a noun. He just says that some nouns have
more than one syllable. The fact that one of the syllables
sounds like a verb relating to the polysyllablic noun is
inconsequential. Nothing can be assumed about it. It is just a
new noun, and Okrand can make up a new noun any time he wants to.
Meanwhile, you can't. I can't. Nobody else here can. Only Okrand
can. Not that you haven't heard that dozens of times before and
ignored it...
> Although MO did not make up {'arDIch}, I have contrived it to show its
> possibility, nay, likelihood. This is the type of thing that will get MO to
> verify or negate.
It took several years before he "verified" {'arlogh}. I'm sure
the only reason he did that was that nobody was able to recast
the question "How many times did the bell toll?" He gave us a
couple years to try and we failed. There was simply no way to
say it in Klingon. Not as a question. Not as a command. Not as a
statement. There was no vocabulary or grammatical construction
that could seek the kind of information that English question
asks for.
The non-existant word *'arDIch* is very simply not necessary. I
doubt you can come up with a question using it that I can't ask
another way, likely through use of {yIngu'}. Meanwhile, this
kind of shoving demands for new vocabulary in his face is almost
certainly a deterrant to him to do so. Why invite more of this
abuse of his language? Do you think he enjoys being told how to
use his own language?
> As for {'ar}, it is an adverb, clearly and truly.
Funny thing. When I look it up in TKD it says it has (ques)
next to it. It is listed among the question words in the text
describing that grammar. It is not listed among the adverbs, and
it doesn't have (adv) after it in the word list. It is amazing
that Okrand could be wrong in so many places, while you are so
confidently right.
> But, when joined with
> {-logh} becomes a question word, even when the answer to the question fills
> the position of an adverb.
{'ar} is not combined with {-logh}. {'ar} is simply one question
word. {'arlogh} is another. The idea that {'ar} can take
suffixes is something you made up. There is no place in TKD that
says it can. You can't make assumptions about chuvmey. We do
have suffixes that can be added to pronouns. We also know that
{-Ha'} can be added to some adverbs. That's about it. In
general, chuvmey can't take suffixes. {'arlogh} is not a
question word plus a suffix. It is just a two-syllable question
word and the second syllable looks a lot like a suffix. Pure
coincidence.
> {'arDIch} will be a question word, just requiring
> a number in an "adjective's" position to answer it.
*'arDIch* is not a word at all. You made it up. Okrand never had
anything to do with *'arDIch*.
I will confess that I repeatedly asked for {'arlogh}, but please
note that I did not say the form of the word had to be
{'arlogh}. I suggested that we needed a question word to mean
"How many?" and one easily recognized candidate would be
{'arlogh}, but if Okrand wanted to come up with a word
pronounced completely different that had that meaning, it was
fine with me. Also, if he had an idiom, or a different
grammatical construction to ask this question, that would be
fine with me as well. I just wanted some way to ask the
question. {'arlogh} was just one possibility.
But here you are demanding a specific spelling of a new word
that has never existed with a meaning we don't need,
pseudo-justified by grammar you make up.
It's not going to win you any friends or converts.
> {nuqDaq} is a question
> word that only appears to be made up of {nuq} and {Daq}. It appears to
> require a locative construction as its answer. But, it can be answered with a
> direct object, viz when the verb is{Dab} or {ghoS}, for example. Actually,
> {nuqDaq} is not a "locative question" at all. It is merely a question word.
I can agree with it being a question word independent of {nuq +
Daq}. While I suggested that it was a suffixed {nuq}, on second
thought, I think I leapt to an incorrect assumption. {nuqDaq} is
simply another word with syllables that resemble a root and a
suffix. Both {nuq} and {nuqDaq} are chuvmey with no grammatical
justification for suffixes of any kind.
Meanwhile, lacking any canon to clarify whether or not {nuqDaq}
can be answered with a noun lacking the {-Daq} suffix, it is
stereotypically presumptive of you to declare openly the right
way to use it. Speaking for myself, I am unsure what the correct
useage is. If you ask me {nuqDaq DaDab?} I am quite uncertain
which of the following answers is more correct:
*Shannon*Daq vIDab.
*Shannon* vIDab.
*Shannon*Daq jIDab.
Almost certainly one or more of these is correct, but I can't
tell you without great doubt which is most correct. I'm quite
mystified as to how you feel so much more confident that you
know the right way.
> peHruS
charghwI' 'utlh