tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 15 09:41:33 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: transitive verbs
ja' DraQoS:
>...I am not talking about dropping things from
>the definition. It is where there is insufficient data in
>the definition that I start to wonder. And I worry that
>accepting the verbatum definition as all there is, you are
>simply encoding English. It is a more elaborate code than
>simple word replacement, but ends up being just a more
>sophisicated code.
You've apparently misunderstood the argument about Klingon not being
encoded English. The key point is the existence of specific grammar
for constructing and interpreting Klingon phrases. Word definitions
aren't the problem here. Indeed, KGT explicitly mentions that some
words in Klingon mean precisely the same thing as their counterparts
in English: {mIn} "eye", {Hov} "star", etc. Where terms are not so
well matched, their definition is necessarily more involved than a
simple word: {tova'Daq} "a kind of insight into another's thoughts",
{maHpIn} "bowl (large serving piece)". {Hagh} "laugh" seems like an
example of the first kind of word.
There's no reason at all to expand the definition of {Hagh} to mean
"laugh at". Its presentation to us is quite clear. There isn't any
suggestion of insufficient data. If you start trying to second-guess
the dictionary, you'll lose the ability to communicate.
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh