tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun May 20 10:37:50 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: the honour discussion
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rohan Fenwick [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 10:59 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: the honour discussion
>
>
> charghwI', I don't profess to know everything about Klingon. No-one does.
> But regarding your statement about "cause and effect", how we can't
> definitely state the cause by just observing the effect: I know.
> You *ARE*
> right. But we are just hypothesising - not saying "this is
> DEFINITELY what's
> going on". We can't do that until Dr Okrand says that this IS what's
> happening.
This sounds like you are getting a wee bit serious about a point that likely
could stand to be taken a little more lightly, especially in this public
forum. I hope I can contribute toward a lowering of the flame, though I know
I'm unskilled at this task.
> I can't speak for voragh - who, by the way, has done
> an excellent
> job with the canon sources -
No conflict there. I have profound respect for voragh and the consistent,
important service he provides for the rest of us.
> but I am just trying to understand
> the contexts
> of both words. There is little point in having two completely
> interchangeable words for one concept.
I'd recommend that you find a thesaurus. It might convince you otherwise. If
there is anything artificial about Klingon, it is that it has a
lower-than-average level of redundancy within the vocabulary when compared
to natural languages. Still, it has quite a few words that have no
difference in meaning that we can be sure of. I no longer keep any
English->Klingon word lists up to date, so I don't have any really handy
reference materials to help me look these up, but the ones I can scrape
together are:
baHwI', matHa'
bIt, jotHa'
chetvI', DuS
Duy, 'oSwI'
Hergh QaywI', HerghwI'
HIja', HISlaH
jaw, joH
jIj, yeq
jonta', QuQ
jo', mIqta'
luq, lu'
maghwI', 'urwI'
pI', ror
SaD, SanID
SuH, Su'
ta', voDleH
'ach, 'a
While it is true that there are some words that were earlier presented to us
to be synonyms and have more recently been differentiated, like {yaS/'utlh}
and {vaj/SuvwI'}, I doubt that is true for all of them. From the few times
I've been able to talk with Okrand at qep'a'mey (like everyone else who
attends), at one convention (like everyone else who attends) and during one
interview (the few exclusive hours I've ever had with him), I've never
gotten any sense from him that he would want the language to not have this
sort of synonym with no differentiation between words. In fact, if someone
suggested to him that none existed in the language, I suspect he'd make some
up just to put us in our place.
Sometimes, he has been forced into creating this sort of thing because of
backfits to mistakes made in the production of movies, but he clearly enjoys
the inconsistency this has created in the language. He sees it as a positive
force, making the language more irregular, like a natural language. He never
wanted Klingon to be perfectly formal in any way, like your suggestion that
each word must have a unique shade of meaning.
I can accept arguments about {quv} vs. {batlh} in and of themselves, but any
argument suggesting that there is always some difference in meaning between
synonyms in Klingon is a non-starter in my book. I'd recommend that you
concede this point and move on.
> Even in English, two words
> are very
> rarely used interchangeably: look at "rabbit" and "bunny".
Your example is not effective, since it was chosen to make your point and
not challenge it. When you can pick up a thesaurus and challenge every
multiple entry, you will have made your point, though I doubt you are up to
the task. Meanwhile, if you insist that all Klingon words need to have
different shades of meaning, then take on the list I provided above. Explain
every entry and while you are doing that, I'll be doing a more comprehensive
job of finding Klingon synonyms.
> Maybe there is
> additional emotive content attached to one or the other of these
> words. Or
> maybe they *DO* mean different aspects of honour. My point is, I
> only said
> "seems". I didn't say "is". However, I completely understand your
> point, and
> I agree with it wholeheartedly. I just think there was a bit of a
> miscommunication.
Going at it from this angle, notice that I did not say that you and voragh
are clearly wrong about this difference in shade of meaning. I just heard
two people pointing out what they believed to be a difference in shade of
meaning that I don't personally feel convinced is obviously valid and I
didn't hear anybody challenging that, and I realized that if nobody
challenged it at all, then in many people's minds, it would become canon. It
would be decided in a way that we lack the authority to decide it.
I think the canon was very good to bring up and I think this possible shade
of meaning is worth continuing to watch for. I think it is fine to use these
words in this way for yourself. I do not think it is okay to tell anyone
that they are wrong if they use these words more interchangeably, and having
you two present your unopposed position would likely eventually lead to
someone feeling justified in doing just that.
That's why I spoke up, and that's why I have not yet stood down or aside on
the issue.
> Thanks for the point you made - it's very
> important also
> regarding the discussion of making new words, in that nothing is real
> Klingon until Maltz tells Dr Okrand that it is.
You are welcome. Thank you for bringing up the issue. I think the discussion
has been thought provoking and useful, so long as we don't take any
premature conclusions too seriously.
> Qapla' 'ej Satlho'
>
> ro'Han
charghwI' 'utlh