tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Sep 21 21:16:44 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: end of Daj thread?
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: end of Daj thread?
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 13:42:38 -0700
lab lay'tel SIvten
> English is my first language, and Klingon is about my seventh (, but who's
> counting?).
jItoghbe'. pab 'utlh jIHmo', qechmey Hal vIghovlaw'bogh vIleghDI', jIQIj
'e' vInID. jIqontaHvIS, SoHvaD latlhpu'vaD je jIqon. bIlaDbej 'ach laDba'
je chu'wI'pu', tamwI'pu' je.
> What I primarily object to is dogmatic explanations of words and
> usages which were never well defined in the first place. Their usage is
> being determined by how people actually do use them, in the cases where MO
> hasn't enlightened us.
We try to determine their usage by how *MO* actually uses them, or failing
that, how he uses similar words. For example, looking at Daj, we see that
it is defined as "be interesting". MO shows us in TKD 4.4 that "be
<adjective>" is the form used for verbs equivalent to English adjectives.
He doesn't anywhere show us a verb that is equivalent to the present
participle of an English transitive verb. We try really hard not to invent
any meanings or patterns that don't exist in the language.
> If a usage doesn't make sense to me, I try to find a
> rationale for it that does make sense, or an explanation of why it doesn't
> make sense.
If a usage doesn't make sense, but all means, complain. Are you saying
that to you "be interesting" as an adjectival verb doesn't make sense? You
argued that the "-ing" ending makes Daj distinct from "be <verb>" forms
like tIn, used in canon, but did you consider /ram/ "be trifling" and /Dal/
"be boring" both used in canon in the way we are trying to persuade you to
accept? (TKW: /Dal pagh jagh/ and TKD: /naDev qaS wanI' ramqu'/).
> Using simple glosses, such as appear in TKD, as complete
> definitions is ludicrous to me. Behind these simple glosses there should
be
> complex and often multiple meanings, each word with its own etymology and
web
> of associations and possible contexts (assuming a real klingon universe,
> etc.).
Oh yes! There are probably dozens of unknown meanings and connotations for
some of our words. But we don't know them, and we haven't the right to try
to guess them. You're quite right that we're playing it like a game; the
challenge of the RPG that you suggest we are playing, is to write Klingon
so conservative that it breaks no current rules, AND breaks no future rules
that are created consistent with current rules. We can't do much to avoid
pitfalls like MO suddenly telling us that OVS no longer applies in drinking
toasts, but nor should we anticipate such things, saying "well there's
nothing that explicitly denies this possibility, so why can't it be true?"
Please do keep looking for assumptions that Klingon speakers have made
erroneously. Back them up with evidence from MO. It's happened before
that someone has said, "hey! wait a moment, we've been doing X all along,
but we've no reason to believe it's correct, look here!" and that there has
been a collective "oh yeah, you're right".
It's not that the Klingon elite only listens to other members of a select
elite, it's that when a person has a deep understanding of the parts of the
language that are clear, that they find the inconsistencies and can back
them up.
Qov