tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 08 15:28:07 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

chaq tugh jImej.

Friends,

I want to be consistent in what I say across all forums, and I 
want to be as clear as possible in my meaning. I am likely on 
the verge of unsubscribing. I don't want to overblow my 
signficance too much, being an existentialist and all, and I 
would probably just disappear like lots of others have, if not 
for having had this list be such a big part of my life. In case 
you haven't noticed, I've written a few messages to this list 
over the years. So, since this is the second time I've come to 
this decision, I feel like I ought to explain myself.

Tolkien supposedly created several languages. I looked at them 
and found them uninteresting. The fragments were not useful in 
terms of actually expressing things. I'm not interested in 
paying homage to a great writer's genius for having come up with 
some system of language nobody really quite understands but 
everyone wants to research the links to existing languages.

No, I just wanted to say stuff in an alien tongue; to share 
things with people in a fun, secretive way and prove myself 
working within a language not of my origin. I saw Klingon as 
containing all the pieces I needed to do this. It has helped me 
see language in new and interesting ways.

My overall model of language can be described as having as 
analog the way that graphics software records graphic images. 
There are two basic kinds of graphics files: Vector based and 
raster based.

Vector based graphics use mathematical formulas to describe 
shapes. Those formulas can be "generalized" and expanded to 
describe a range of shapes beyond their obvious original intent. 
This parallels the "rules" of the language; the grammar.

Raster based graphics use specific values in specific places in 
order to turn dots different colors, resulting in the image. 
Each value affects only a given dot and it is not generalizable. 
These parallel the memorized aspects of language, like 
vocabulary, exceptions to rules, and special relationships 
between given words. These are things which have a granular 
effect on meaning conveyed which can't be generalized beyond the 
specific examples where they apply.

Early in learning Klingon, I sought to learn the grammar and 
look up the words because I have strong skills at understanding 
the interaction of rules, and I'm very weak at memorization. I 
learned what I thought were the rules of grammar for Klingon and 
as I learned vocabulary (an area I'm still weak at after all 
these years) and have been meticulous about trying to catalog 
those aspects of the language which cannot be generalized.

I may learn to speak French, but I'll never pass as a Frenchman 
because I'll never always know which preposition to use in a 
given setting or whether a given noun I think of as neuter is 
actually masculine or feminine. This is not a rule based thing. 
It is a memorized thing, and I've never done that memorizing. I 
may be able to converse in French, but I will obviously be a 
foreigner while doing it.

I've been trying to get past that in Klingon. My work on my 
several dictionaries has been an effort to catalog the minute 
parts that make the language work like a natural language, while 
I naturally found it easy to fit the grammar rules together to 
make sentences. The memorized parts were the polish that made 
speech in the language convincing and clear.

In particular, the relationship between verbs and nouns has been 
the thing I've worked the most on for a couple years now. I've 
been trying to figure out what set of nouns acts as an 
appropriate direct object for each verb. This is the essence of 
understanding the verbs well, or so I thought.

The grammatical "subject" is easy enough to figure out. The 
relationship between a verb and a subject is fairly universal. 
The thing doing the action of the verb is the subject.

Meanwhile, just as in English, "I go around a planet" and "I 
orbit a planet" both involve the concept of the preposition 
"around", but one includes that concept in its relationship to 
its direct object, so to understand the word "go" and to 
understand the word "orbit" you have to understand that the main 
difference is the relationship between the verb and the thing 
one goes around. One verb needs a preposition. The other one 
doesn't. One is "intransitive" and the other is "transitive".

Klingon packs these prepositional concepts in different 
grammatical constructions. Meanwhile, each verb has a special 
relationship with that thing I label as the "direct object". 
That is the thing which is grammatically indicated in most cases 
as a noun with no Type 5 noun suffix placed immediately before a 
verb which I would call "transitive".

I know that the words "transitive" and "direct object" are not 
altogether welcome to everyone here, and Okrand's comments have 
reinforced that uneasiness with these terms, though he has never 
gotten very specific on what is wrong with these terms and what 
would better describe the verbs I call transitive and the nouns 
I call direct objects.

I've always left it with the perspective that if it walks like a 
duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, and these verbs walk 
and quack as if they were transitive and the nouns in front of 
them walk and quack as if they were direct objects, and if 
Okrand wants to enjoy an enigmatic smirk and hold his cards 
close to his chest and say, "You don't have it right yet," and 
never tell us what right is when it comes to this terminology, 
then I'm starting to feel like my own efforts at doing this well 
are becoming both burdensome and unrewarding.

Until the recent discussions about the effect of {-moH} on verbs 
I would call "transitive", and the possible interpretations of 
roles of nouns I would call direct and indirect objects, I 
really felt like people can use whatever terms they like. I have 
a pretty good grip on how all this works. I can say things 
clearly using the rules of grammar I know and cataloging and 
memorizing the verb-specific relationships with direct objects.

These recent discussions have presented the idea that, as a 
prime example {targhvaD Qa'Hom vISopmoH} means "I cause-to-eat 
the Qa'Hom for the benefit of the targ." The relationship 
between "cause-to-eat" and {Qa'Hom} is ambiguous to the point 
that without context, one can never tell whether the {Qa'Hom} is 
doing the eating or being eaten. The grammar is lacking any tool 
to make this clear. Only context can determine which is the case.

That completely undermines my efforts at gaining anything 
approaching a native understanding of how to use the words well 
to express meaning. As minor as this point apparently seems to 
many people, the effect on me is that I want to burn or delete 
every dictionary I have, unsubscribe from the list and Okrand's 
NEWS group, and except for sustaining good friendships with good 
and interesting people I've met over the years working with this 
language, otherwise forget I ever saw TKD.

I didn't work so hard to learn this language so that I would 
discover that I can't clearly express whether that Qa'Hom is 
eating or being eaten. Maybe Okrand thinks it is cool to 
immitate natural languages which have exactly that kind of 
ambiguity built in. Bully for him. I hope he enjoys turning that 
concept around in his head.

But it completely disengages me from interest in the language.

Completely.

Not almost completely.

Completely.

So, I've lost all my momentum working on the language.

pItlh

charghwI' 'utlh

Back to archive top level