tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 05 12:21:35 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lexicography paper on TKD
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 19:50:22 -0500
Alan Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
%
%It might help if I knew what a "lexicographical approach"
%is. I assume
%your paper adequately explains it, but I don't have a
%handy way to read
%Postscript right now. Is there enough fancy formatting
%in the paper to
%make a plain text version unusable?
%
I might turn it into PDF later, but I haven't got the
software for that at the moment, and I didn't need to when
I wrote the paper.
%[** later ** I have now obtained the PDF. That's a much
%better medium for
%widespread readability. However, I'm not yet enlightened
%about what
%"lexicographical approach" means. I might have more
%comments later, or I
%might not.]
I thought that was quite obvious. :-) "lexicography" is
that particular branch withing linguistics dealing with
ionaries and how they are made or "the art of making
dictionaries". I.e. an academic approach to the structure
of the TKD.
%I'd suggest finding another term for the larger work.
% That would help in
%two ways. First, it would reduce the burden of context,
%making things that
%much less confusing. More importantly, it would more
%readily distinguish
%between the existing book named "The Klingon Dictionary"
%and your proposed
%"Revised Standard Klingon Dictionary" or whatever.
I don't think I'm gonna rewrite it at the moment (no
time...) but if I will later on, I'll take it into
account, even though I don't think that it should cause
that much confusion...
%I should probably find a way to read the paper before I
%start questioning
%it, shouldn't I? I don't see how there would be a
%connection between
%phonetic transcription and compound nouns.
%
%[** later ** After having read the relevant section, I
%still don't see a
%connection.]
%
If you've read Will Martin's comments on it as well, then
you should understand that I say that because he commented
on it:" The issue of whether or not to combine compound
nouns is amusing, since our written form of the language
is really just phonetic. Since we don't know how Klingon
words are written, how are we to know if they are
separated? The arbitrary choice I make is to decide that
words are combined when they are fossilized as a pair in
common speech as if they were one word. The only hint we
have about this is canon."
%>Some feedback by Will Martin, who also used to be on
this
%>list, can be found on the same site.
%
%Will's passion for a conservative approach to the
%language is legendary.
%He has been a tremendous stabilizing influence as people
%try to take ideas
%and run with them before learning how to walk. He also
%can be quite
%stubborn when his own preferences are challenged, but he
%has admitted
%defeat on several occasions.
And? (sorry, I don't get want you are trying to say...)
%>Qapla' with reading it.
%Making it available in a more accessible format would
%increase our success. ;-)
%
%[** later ** A less "granular" PDF would be better yet.]
%
%I'd like to point out that in this note you've
%consistently referred to
%"the TKD", which I find irritatingly redundant. If you
%call it that in
%your paper as well, you should consider correcting it.
%
%[** later ** Not only does the paper continue this odd
%"the TKD" practice,
%but it extends it to "the TKW" and "the KGT". You should
%definitely do
%something about it.]
%
%-- ghunchu'wI'
I don't consider it too odd to revise that. Any feedback
on the content though? :-)
C. Krottje
Student of English Language and Culture
at the RuG, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Address: Murano Street Student Village
17 Caithness Street (Ochil House)
Flat M Room 2
Glasgow G20 7SB
Scotland
Tel.:+447986935417
E-mail: [email protected]
[email protected]