tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 18 19:38:28 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: QeD De'wI' ngermey

On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, David Trimboli wrote:
> From: "...Paul" <>
> > "paghmo' tIn mIS'e' lInglu'ta' 'e' vIboQ jIH'e'" --
> > "I assisted the production of confusion because of a big nothing?"
> /paghmo' tIn mIS/ is the name of the KLI's second Shakespearean translation,
> "Much Ado about Nothing."  I apologize for not marking it as a proper noun.

qay'be' -- what is the proper marking for proper nouns in tlhIngan Hol?
I've seen the prefixed *, but what if it's a phrase, like this?

> > What if tomorrow Okrand got hit by a bus?
> Why not deal with that when it happens?  Why do you want to turn our hobby
> into a committee-run bureacracy?  "All in favor of /'I''a'/ meaning
> 'Almighty Sarlac?'  Aye!  Motion passes!  Now on to the Suffix
> Appropriations Subcommitte . . . ."

Because chaos would reign if it happened and we didn't have a plan.  What
if we at least had Okrand sign off on a line of succession?  Then we would
know for sure, *now*, what to do with the language later.  Even if it's as
simple as him saying, "Next in line of control is Dr. Schoen."  Then we
only have to worry about the issue if something unfortunate happens to
Lawrence before Marc (or if they're both hit by the same bus at the same
time).  The fiction of Klingon history is replete with examples of the
chaos caused by not having a clear line of succession.  And it doesn't
have to be by committee, nor does it have to be open to the public.  A
tribunal of KLI's founders and most loyal would make for a fine and simple
system.  People who are available to debate whether or not there's a hole
in the language that should be filled.

> Basically, you've reached the point where you're saying to yourself, "What's
> the point?"  Speaking the language IS the point.  You really can use the
> language to talk about just about anything you want, even computer science,
> but you must accept that we don't have access to any Klingons to tell us
> specifics.

Aye, "What's the point?"  But not "What's the point of speaking Klingon?"
rather "What's the point of Klingon's existence?"  The original point of
its existence was to create a consistent language for Roddenberry's use.
The fact that it caught on is secondary.  Indeed, I still feel that Okrand
might believe we're all a bunch of loonies that he humors with the
occasional new word.  I seriously doubt he's developing it actively.

And you're right, we don't have any Klingons to tell us specifics.  But
then realize, we don't have any Klingons *at all*.  My interest in this
language is not the fandom aspect.  While I'm fascinated by the depth of
the fictional warrior culture, my interest in the language has been almost
purely linguistic.  And from that viewpoint, the language has been pretty

> The fiction is that Klingon is a real language that we're trying to learn,
> and that we need information from Klingons.  If you don't like that game,
> you're going to have to build your own sandbox, and try to convince other
> people to play in it.  Hopefully, someone else won't come up with a BETTER
> sandbox than yours.

Have you ever read Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson?  It had a great subplot
about neurolinguistic programming and how language has diverged in an
environment where one might expect it to converge.  It's one of the
reasons I really got interested in the actual study of language.  Even
English is divergent, between accents and regional dialects.  I don't want
to see a divergent Klingon base; that's one of the fascinating things
about the language.

At the same time, divergence is currently the only way Klingon can go to
grow.  The hardline conservatism is drawing a line between those who see
Klingon as an interactive fiction, and those who see it as an experimental

> > > pIq'e' DaleghlaHbogh SoH poQbe'bej tlhIngan Hol.  yIjeS; yInvetlh yImuv.
> >
> > "Klingon definitely doesn't need you who can see the future."
> /'e'/ can be used to mark the head noun of a relative clause that also
> contains a noun that is not its head (HolQeD Vol. 4, No. 2, p. 6).  And

Doh, and to think I just read that bit in my Grammarian's Desk Reference a
few days ago.  :P

> > Hol pIq bonabbe'chugh QIt Hegh Hol 'e' Danabbej.
> pIq Danabpu'bogh parchugh vay' Qoch 'e' Dachaw''a'?  qar 'Iv?

'e' wIwuqnISba'.  rIp quv wIchenmoH 'e' vIchup.  chaq wej 'oSwI'
muvmoHlu''a'?  chaq Qu'vamvaD { Lawrence }, { d'Armond }, { Krankor } je

{ Okrand } vISovbe'.  vaj vIghellaHbe'.  pIj jeSba' { KLI } nugh.  vaj
ghu'wIj Sov 'ej batlh ghu'wIj DublaH.

choH chu' vIparHa'bogh vISaHbe' 'ach choHmey vIleghbogh vISaH.

> > vay' woQ vInIH 'e' vInIDbe'.  Hol pIqvaD nab QaQ wIchennISmoH 'e'
> > vIHarbejtaH.
> Don't put that Type 7 suffix on the second verb of the Sentence as Object
> construction (TKD p. 66)!

My bad, good catch.  :)

> nab chennISmoH 'Iv?  'ej nab chenmoHlu'chugh, qatlh Marc Okrand SaHlu'?

lI'be' { Okrand } vIja'be' vIquvHa'moHbe'mo'.  tlhIngan Hol chenmoHwI'
ghaHbej 'ach nugh potlh law' wa' nuv potlh puS.  Hoch Sovbe' { Okrand }.
vaj chay' mu' chu' Sovbe'bogh chenmoHlaH?  Doch law' SovlaH rIp quv.


 **        Have a question that reality just can't answer?        **
  ** Visit Project Galactic Guide **

Back to archive top level