tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 14 01:56:03 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: mangpu' or negh?
- From: Shane MiQogh <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: mangpu' or negh?
- Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 01:55:52 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=rQ/rKAT3uIXEIsTurG38HCPb4Baz9hf06HULO2byZrlEdUOQRlLqDvwxb5zEj0Ibm4F1TonYCSt8PecoCMPM/U7smbxAXIxqq0epccOafvHq0dq9ouA56SIUB4VxspfbgOFBzDAfZeCi7/7snaSvJdMyktWdu0RRFqppiltZF/g= ;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
>Which is how it is in Klingon.
And thankful for it i am...
>Okay, then, define it as "in a state of having fear".
it's still some what complete without a "because of BLAH".
>Why? "I am afraid" is translatable by Klingon {vIghIjlu'} "something scares
>me".
"Something scares me" would be easy for foreigners, but "afraid" is a wee bit different...
>What's the connection between OVS and agglutinativity?
Nothing directly. Object verb subject is uncommon, and often hard to learn because of that, therefor making suffixes to help along with the correct placement or Okrand's little amendments to the format (like making something come in a slightly different order) numbered suffixes would be easier. Or course, i'm not fluent in any OVS languages, therefor i don't really have an example of this in klingon where he *may* have changed the normal format.
>Since rovers can modify other rovers, there's no grammatical reason why we
>couldn't say {yIntaH ngo'qu'qu'qu'qu'wI'}. However, it's not very good
>Klingon, in the same way as your example isn't very good English.
I never considered such a phrase possible... but now when i look at TKD again, i realize it very well is... Ok, scratch the repeat reson idea...
>This is "if I had killed him before he came". "If he left before I came"
>would be {jIghoSpa' mejchugh}.
Oops, until i went back and checked, i didn't think you could have 2 of the same number suffix on 1 word, so pardon me on that error...
>I imagine the reality is much simpler: agglutinative languages are easy to
>learn. An affix stays an affix, regardless of what comes before or after it.
>Compare the complicated declension tables of fusional languages like Latin
>or ancient Greek.
Intresting, i'll keep that in mind if i want to make an artificial language for a game if i ever make one.
>Klingon has something that speakers of just about every language would find
>bizarre. I don't think it's appreciably harder to learn for any one group.
Not exactly the message i want to get accross.. What i mean to say is, it's equally hard, making it no easier for one person of one language than one person from another. Perhaps i should have worded that better...
>That has everything to do with *written* language, and absolutely nothing to
>do with spoken language. Anyway, that's only true to a limited extent.
Indeed. It was an answer to the person who wrote an entire english sentance together and asked why it would be incorrect.
>What word am I thinking of when I write "mepireratotinstin"?
misinterpretation?
>That's a big call. What makes you think that?
If the suffixes were placed as suffixes rather than seperate words for the purpose of grammar, one could assume that he'd do that based on the fact that he's learned many languages (or so they say) and i'm sure he's heard the butchering of the other languages and thought to himself that he didn't want his own language to end up that way. Wouldn't that be your natural instinct, too?
>That's if you have never encountered a word before. If you know it already,
>you just say it, and you rarely think about syllables.
Even you may breakit up in your head when reading it fluently. of course, you wouldn't notice it cause you're used to doing it.
>If we did that for Klingon, we would have some 2,000 letters in the Klingon
>writing system to take care of all the different syllables that could occur.
>Even worse in English; what letter would you propose for the word "sprints",
>which is monosyllabic?
Japanese managed to do it in about 26... Though the exact calculation for 2 letters in klingon would be 125, 3 letter sylobols would be 3125 and 4 letter would be 78125... but of course, that's if you include consonants against conconents as sylobol combinations and without switching locations... Vowel to consonant would be 100, consonant to vowel would be 100 (leaving 200 so far) then consonant to vowel to consonant would be 2000, then you would have an extra 20 for incase of a ' after the consonant... leaving you 2020, but since not all combinations are used, it'd be less than that, but i'd esimate somwhere between 1500 and 1900. But that is completely irrelevant...
>Reading it aloud isn't the problem, it's looking up what a word means. If
>you're a good learner, you can learn all the Klingon suffixes and prefixes
>in a couple of hours; everything beyond that is what roots you know.
I mean reading a prewritten sentance aloud.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.