tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 20 13:31:48 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: QongDaqDaq
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, David Trimboli wrote:
> 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.
I was refering to the concept of starting a sentance with a conjunction
when there is not another sentance to connect it to. I noticed you did
this, but I still understood you even though it was grammatically
incorrect. ;)
> > 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.
'oH refers to the idea that a guy, on earth, speaks a language that was
created as a prop. The wonder and amazement felt by me when I realise the
whole concept of a tool going from one persons mind to becoming something
that a group of beings can actually use to communicate their thoughts,
opinions and beliefs.
> 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.
Which other thing is the pronoun I substituting for? Pronouns are much
more than vague replacements for other things. I expresses the concept of
unique oneness, the me, the only me, the I that I am, and not the I that
you are. I refers to my ability to be self-aware, to understand my
surroundings and to actually be able to hold this conversation where I
discuss the meaning of I. As you can see, I put a lot into the meanings of
words....
> /'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.
No, "'oH" or "it" does refer to nebuluous potential of things, until I
define the "it" down to the point where it becomes a particular thing, and
then it is no longer the vague it that it can be.
> 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.
What I feel is very relevant, since I'm the one speaking. I say things in
English which don't feel right, but are grammatically correct, but I will
rephrase it because of that feeling. Just as I say things in farsi that
don't feel free but are correct. The same thing goes for Klingon.
> Okay, tell me what /'oH/ refers to in your previous /'oH vISov/ sentence.
See above...
> 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.
Well of course! The only way to learn the rules is to try and push them as
far as they will go and break them as need be. Once you break a rule you
know you have pushed it far enough. Some rules bend much further than
others. Since the orginal Klingon Dictionary was published the language
has changed because people have tried to break the rules... I think I
might have read too much of Krankor's work :)
> With regard to Klingon, this is not correct.
>
> Klingon was created as a prop for a movie, not for the purpose of
> communication.
Yes it was, but it's not just a movie prop anymore! Hence the reason the
KLI exists, the reason Hamlet and Gilgamesh were translated, not so they
could be props for movies, but to test the language to see if we can use
it to communicate. Is not our goal to use Klingon to communicate? Why do
all this if it's just a prop for a movie?
> 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.
Yes, Klingon is the language of the Klingons, and I'm guessing you don't
go to many star trek conventions. I've seen many Klingons :) but that
aside, the Klingon language was created by a Human based on concepts and
ideas that writers and directors of star trek came up with. Those concepts
and ideas of what it is to be Klingon where created by Humans, therefore
anyone can understand and follow those concepts and ideas and BE Klingon.
None of the ideas in Klingon or Star Trek are really alien, it all came
from humans, so humans can understand it. We don't need to have an actual
Klingon because there isn't one, there are simply humans thinking like
Klingons. So be a human thinking like a Klingon and then it becomes YOUR
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?
I'm not ignoring the description of the language, I'm streching it,
intereptating it differently from you. Just as Americans interpretate
English differently from Britians. I know, I've had misunderstandings
simply because an American English word means something different from a
British English word. Neither are right or wrong, they are just different
ways of seeing things.
As for errors... since there aren't any Klingons I
would think that they don't care about them ;)