tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Apr 15 06:42:25 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Why we can use words that it'd take klingons 5 minutes to understand.
- From: Shane MiQogh <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Why we can use words that it'd take klingons 5 minutes to understand.
- Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 06:41:48 -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=xkjLwgEDhPbX99ilQCJRNnYkBdUo1cjap0A537VW/C9I2J8lHjqvwz/6PRE9JHKMI/hRxASErAg/7zOzMYwYihnfynRApJKUt2k1GvTxU7nXsGS9B2mFxouryX61lC0n3641UXTCt5WldT038vThdErXieLvWBd0KxVMKyF9rSA= ;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
>bISagh'a' jay'?
HIja', ghojlu' lughlu'.
>And those who learn languages as second languages only use what words they
>know from reading books or being told by their teacher.
Indeed, but it must be a correct source.
>No, they don't make sense because the meanings you ascribe to them are not
>immediately discernible from their form. "Supermarine", as I have said
>before, strikes me as being something on top of the water's surface, not
>flying in the air. And I've already dealt with "dishate" in more detail than
>I wanted to.
To be completely above the water, is to be flying in the air. Even a boat is under the water... And as i said before, dishate only sounds weird cause we don't use it. Who says a klingon dosn't deal with muSHa'?
>Or not normal. As you pointed out, "mon nom est" is grammatical in French,
Aye, and based on that we can assume that klingons may be used to methods of which we aren't. muSHa' parqu'.... both may be words they understand, but because they sound funny in english, dosn't mean it is funny to them. For all we know, this fictional character interprets 1 word as 2 seperate ideas. Some of you translate it in your head as 1 idea for muSHa', but when i translate that in my head I think 2 ideas. And that example of "dishate".... You're not even supposed to say love in those conditions anyway, it would be "like" but that is something that happened to english long ways down the line...
>but hardly ever seen. Similarly, {toDHa'} might be correct, but hardly
>anyone uses anything except {HoH}. The goal with any language is to speak it
>as native speakers speak it. That's why we go back to canon so often in
>Klingon, because it's the closest thing to a native speaker that we have.
Closest isn't it... The old phrase comes to mind "So close, yet so far."
>Just because we *can* use words that would take a Klingon five minutes to
>understand doesn't mean that we should. That's not our goal.
It's not our goal. Our goal is to get as close to a klingon as possible, but we don't have a klingon. That's the problem, so our new goal in effect would be to see how much of the language we can use ourselves. this is a language of communication, but limiting ourselves to what might or might not be understood is limiting what messages we can convey. We forget that some people convey certain words differently. Even in english really dislike would mean more or less to one person than another. In effect, natrually to most people, like alot (parHa'qu') and love (muSHa') are 2 different things. Saying one over the other would leave a subliminal message, which seems to be removed when we loose our flexability.
>But if they're taboo, wouldn't you ask yourself *why* they're taboo?
>Klingons are not well known for their friendly attitude to improper language
>usage.
Supposedly, that's based on insults. I don't see how muSHa' would be insulting... Some may not even be taboos, we don't even know. We're judging before proven guilty shall i phrase it.
>Strictly, "super duper" is what linguists call a "reduplication": where all
>or part of a word is doubled and sometimes altered slightly in order to
>perform some grammatical function. New York English uses this fairly
>frequently under Yiddish influence: "who cares about the
>girls?". Turkish has "reform and so on". Many reduplicative
>constructions are colloquial: "super duper" is one of these. It's proper and
>recognised in colloquial English, but you won't find it in any dictionary.
>Klingon, by contrast, doesn't have any reduplication that I can think of.
Indeed, that's why it would be proper in klingon, but not english. And considering how supposedly they look up to their fathers (even to death, so as i child i'd expect them to look up to them more than we do) they would most likely put to use a stronger term. -'a' Dun would be that stronger term, but has no literal english translation.
---------------------------------
Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.