tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 14 00:54:49 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Words not in Dictionary (Was: Canonical Klingon)
- From: Carleton Copeland <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Words not in Dictionary (Was: Canonical Klingon)
- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:54:40 +-300
- Encoding: 40 TEXT
jIja':
> ...{DawI'}--meaning *actor*--is a logical and
> useful extrapolation from the verb {Da}, but (correct me if I'm
> wrong) is not to be found in any official wordlist.
jang ghunchu'wI' 'utlh. ja':
> Would you call {majatlhrup} a logical and useful extrapolation
> as well? Building words from roots and affixes is the way Klingon.
> grammar works. If one were to try to catalog all legitimate words,
> the word list would be unmanageably large, and it would also fail
> to capture any contextual clues that tend to explain what is meant
> when certain words are used in real sentences.
Three points:
First, when I made this comment my only concern was that, in the barrage of
explanations, no one had yet said, point blank, that {DawI'} was being used
to mean *actor*. This clarification may have been superfluous, but I'm a
firm believer in the utility of both asking "stupid" questions and stating
the "obvious".
Second, the semantic movement from *one who behaves as or acts in the
manner of* to *actor* in the sense of *performer* is not a great stretch,
granted, but neither is it self-evident. It's about as transparent, I
suppose, as the use of {QubwI'} to mean *sage* or *scholar*. I probably
wouldn't quibble, but finer points have been argued on the list with great
passion.
Third, I personally haven't the faintest shadow of a problem with {DawI'}
meaning *actor* (performer) and so do not intend to argue the point
further.
pItlh.
qa'ral