tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 20 12:09:55 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: QongDaqDaq
From: "qurgh" <[email protected]>
> Hmm... a conjunction implys a joining of two sentances, why would a
> Klingon waste time using a conjunction is there was no other sentance to
> connect to?
YOU'RE the one who used the conjunction, not me. I just don't see any
grammatical or semantic reason why one couldn't be used.
> > > tlhIngan Hol jatlh Qanqor 'ej 'oH vISov!
> > > Krankor speaks Klingon and I know it!
> >
> > No. /'oH/ is not the right pronoun. /'e'/ is used for that.
>
> Why can't I use 'oH in that sentance? It's not grammicatally incorrect.
> Both "tlhIngan Hol jatlh Qanqor" and "'oH vISov" are perfectly fine
> setances.
Tell me what /'oH/ refers to in that sentence.
> Just if I said:
>
> tlhIngan Hol jatlh Qanqor 'ej 'oH yIlIjQo'!
> Krankor speaks Klingon and don't you forget it!
>
> I think saying that you _have_ to use a pronoun in a particular place is
> limiting the possibilities of the language. Yes 'e' is used to refer to
> the previous sentance, but if the whole topic of conversation is Krankor
> and his speaking, 'oH would work fine. I'm telling you not to forgot
> something much more than the sentance that 'e' could refer to.
Bah. Pronouns substitute for other things. /'oH/ substitutes for a "thing"
noun. /'e'/ substitutes for a previously-stated sentence. You tell me what
noun /'oH/ in your sentence is referring to.
/'oH/ doesn't refer to a nebulous potential of things out there. It must
refer to a specific thing-noun. Tell me what it is.
> Yes, I could do:
>
> tlhIngan Hol jatlh Qanqor 'ej 'e' yIlIjQo'!
> And don't forget that Krankor speaks Klingon!
>
> But to me it doesn't have the same feeling.
What you feel about it is largely irrelevant. What KLINGONS feel about it
is what is important. And Klingons (there's a leading conjunction) feel
that /'e'/ is the pronoun to use to refer to a previous sentence. We know
this because we have it described to us in TKD.
> My "it" is bigger in scope
> than "'e'". 'oH can be anything from an atom to the universe, 'e' can
> only be the last sentance...
Okay, tell me what /'oH/ refers to in your previous /'oH vISov/ sentence.
> > Until you can get your meaning across grammatically, you're speaking a
> > Klingon-like language, not Klingon.
>
> Heh... When you speak English, your actually speaking an English-like
> language, when you speak Klingon your speaking a Klingon-like language.
> No matter how hard you try, there will always be slight differences in
> peoples interpretaions of grammactical rules and the meanings of words.
In a natural language, I fully accept this. Klingon is not a natural
language. It sounds to me like you're intentionally trying to find new ways
to break the rules.
> The point of language is to
> communicate, if I can fulfil that goal then it was successful even if
> someone thinks it's not grammatical, I will have still used the language
> for the purpose it was created.
With regard to Klingon, this is not correct.
Klingon was created as a prop for a movie, not for the purpose of
communication.
But let's forget about that. Klingon is the language of the Klingons. You
and I are not Klingons. We don't have access to any Klingons. For US to
speak THEIR language, we must determine what it is, not make it up. If we
make it up, if we intentionally ignore the rules, then we're not speaking
someone else's language.
Languages vary and change. They do this in certain ways, and not in others.
We don't know what deviations are acceptable in Klingon, beyond what is
mentioned by Okrand. We DO know what they are in English. It is just plain
unacceptable for me to say "Me is a English linguist." Oh, I get my point
across just fine. It's perfectly understandable. But it's wrong, wrong,
wrong. So what makes it okay to blatantly ignore the description of the
language in TKD and other sources? How do you know what errors are
acceptable by Klingons?
SuStel
Stardate 3139.6