tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Apr 15 17:16:09 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 17:15:57 -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=EtMkD1ahoKPOqtuaQrot35ZN9IQ0uMl1asAB8R/GhpgKYJHxrg5zORVtR9yUS+TvOnAteLipENr+ZXsScv30Kj36tIWKwqmCRJVDpNeL3FWimaQJ0Pf8SFdS/sydbsgPed3i2l4JdtUULnKPkhGf9v57Fniit3Qw2GlXBADRECw= ;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
>In these formations, "the water" is being treated as a two-dimensional
>surface, which is why a submarine is called a submarine (= "under the sea")
>and not an "en-marine" (= "in the sea"). In a properly functioning (i.e. not
>sinking), normal boat, no point on the boat has water immediately above it.
>Every point on the boat is over the water that's immediately under it, and
>that justifies it being called a "supermarine" as well.
There is no boat that floats completely on the water...
>And the flying boat from Final Fantasy, I think, would just be called a
>{puvlaHbogh bIQ Duj} or a "flying boat"; "supermarine" implies it can only
>travel above the water, not above the land as well (and IIRC the flying boat
>in Final Fantasy *can* travel above the land). So why not call it an "air
>ship" or "flying boat", which are not only more accurate but also shorter?
That was mearly an example of something that would more appropriatly take the title. I myself would prefer flying boat as it could be on water as well.
>Ah, I think I see where we're getting confused here. I have no problem with
>{muSHa'} *in Klingon*. I've used it plenty of times, and I'll happily use it
>again. What I have the problem with is the English translation "dishate". In
>all my previous messages on this topic, when I've said "dishate", I have
>been referring only to the English word. If I had meant the Klingon word
>{muSHa'}, I would have said {muSHa'}.
That's what this is all about, though. It's not about dishate in english, but usage of it in klingon. This is all about of Klingon ideas. Usage of infinate combinations (and concepts) in klingon rather than english. The original email had nothing to deal with the usage of dishate in english or any other language except klingon.
>Yes, but it's the closest we've got, isn't it?
That's like crusifying the bible because some one provides "evidence" (not proof) that it was edited.
>That's right, and as a result, we have to treat the canon database as though
>it were a database of actual utterances. In that sense, we are limited; it's
>like re-learning an extinct or almost extinct language from books rather
>than from native speakers. Beyond that, we have to be cautious, and use our
>intuition: we have to ask ourselves "Is this how a Klingon would say it?"
>From canon, we get not only sentence patterns, but also more overarching
>stylistic tendencies: for instance, the use of repetition in Klingon. It's
>these stylistic tendencies that give us our intuition as to whether
>something is *likely* to be right or not. We can't say conclusively and
>absolutely whether a sentence is correct if it isn't taken verbatim from
>canon; however, we can certainly say things and say "I think this is how a
>Klingon would say it", and be able to back it up with either explicit or
>implied principles from canon.
But, i see it often implied when some one makes a remark that such examples are deffinate, (though not directly saying it) and treating it as a rule. As some one has said, "muSHa' " may be interpreted as not hating or caring at all, which... Needless to say is on the border of obserd(sp?).
>The problem with that lies in that if we *don't* limit ourselves to what can
>be understood, then we start taking too much control over the language. We
>have to explain ourselves with every neologism, every new turn of phrase,
>every new metaphor or idiom. If you have to do this, you may as well not be
>using Klingon. While canon has its limits, the benefit of using it as a
>guide is that everyone's starting off on a level playing field.
Perhaps we should try to restrict ourselves to more literal translations instead. As long as everything's literal, a good read of TKD could cure any misconception that i've seen. And there's nothing wrong with asking waht you mean as long as it's not so far out that it can't be answered in klingon. I often cut myself and shy away from using parqu' and muSHa' because of the... how shall i say... Shunning down on that is done by the usage of them.
>Well, you've just demonstrated that they're two different things in Klingon
>too.
Exactly, and that's why i feel we should only restrict ourselves to TKD. As far as i've seen (i know i've seen little) other than wordlists, TKD is a perfect guide. Just a matter of reading and remembering.
>jIjatlhqa': jIHvaD qay'be'qu' tlhIngan Hol mu' {muSHa'}. jIHvaD qay' DIvI'
>Hol mu' "dishate". DIvI' Hol mu''e' motlhHa'.
Then my problem lies not with you, but those who have a problem with muSHa'. That's what the whole email was all about, that we shouldn't avoid using it.
>Just because a word is not found in a dictionary doesn't make it improper.
>Some of the most interesting constructions in English are colloquialisms.
I'll keep that in mind.
>And I retract my previous statement that Klingon doesn't appear to have
>reduplication, in view of the construction {beyHom bey bey'a'} found on one
>of the Skybox cards (which one escapes me at the moment), which may be a
>form of reduplication.
It seems we treat the cards almost as highly as cannon... Which even cannon alone is treated to highly...
And i came up with another idea... As the klingon culture is often what we base this on, we must not forget that according to the storyline, i'm sure Vulcans and Romulans both which would cause the klingons to have to get used to their entire vocabulary. Vulcans usually say alot of nothing while Romulans give a full exercise on subliminal messages and backstabbing. Both of which would keep a Klingon's vocabulary quite spectacular.
QeS 'utlh <[email protected]> wrote:
ghItlhpu' Shane MiQogh, ja':
>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'?
>Closest isn't it... The old phrase comes to mind "So close, yet so far."
>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.
>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.
>Indeed, that's why it would be proper in klingon, but not english.
QeS 'utlh
tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pabpo' / Grammarian of the Klingon Language Institute
not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
- Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh
_________________________________________________________________
Win 1000s of music downloads and Party MeeGos instantly. Play now!
http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=689&referral=hotmailtagline&URL=http://partyfever.ninemsn.com.au/compintro.aspx?compid=209
---------------------------------
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.