tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 16 00:33:28 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: "QeS 'utlh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Why we can use words that it'd take klingons 5 minutes to understand.
- Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 17:33:15 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' Shane MiQogh, ja':
>The original email had nothing to deal with the usage of dishate in
>english or any other language except klingon.
vaj mayajchuqpu'.
>That's like crusifying the bible because some one provides "evidence"
>(not proof) that it was edited.
nuqjatlh? *canon* DaqeltaHvIS bIja' SoH'e' <tlhoS 'oH 'ach 'oHbe'bej>.
What? It was *you* who said "so close, yet so far" when talking about 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.
Nothing is ever definite, but some things are so overwhelmingly likely that
we can treat them as reasonable. Any language is a system, which means that
certain classes of words behave in a certain way, and words that are part of
the same class tend to behave similarly. Just because {tlhaQbe'} doesn't
appear anywhere in canon doesn't make it unreasonable to suggest that
{tlhaQbe'} is not a legal Klingon word. And as in any language, not 100% of
the rules need be followed 100% of the time.
However, the trick is to know when it's OK to break a rule and when it
isn't, which does take a fairly good knowledge of the rules. As well as
this, it's usually a good idea to demonstrate that you *can* produce good,
grammatical Klingon before you start intentionally breaking rules in this
way, in the same way as when writing English in chat rooms and so on, if you
use abbreviations like "omg", "roflmao", and such like all the time without
displaying an otherwise good knowledge of English, people will think of you
as somewhat less than intelligent.
>As some one has said, "muSHa' " may be interpreted as not hating
>or caring at all,
ghobe'; ja'pu'qu' ghunchu'wI'; qechvetlh 'oS {muSbe'}.
No. As ghunchu'wI' has pointed out, that would be {muSbe'}.
>which... Needless to say is on the border of obserd(sp?).
absurd
>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.
That's right. Translating English idioms into Klingon is not the right thing
to do, particularly since many Klingon speakers do not have English as their
first language. We do have idioms in Klingon, but if you can't use a purely
Klingon idiom or metaphor, it may be best to speak literally instead.
>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.
Then we start to get into the story of {'I'}. Proper names you can do this
with. But if I start speaking Klingon and using the word *{maSmello'}
"marshmallow", and I have to stop to explain what I mean every time, then
I'm injecting my own words, culture and personal biases into the language,
which is not what we are trying to do.
>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.
I would say that {parHa'} is okay for "to like", since "to dislike" is
obviously opposed to "to like". {muSHa'} is also a good Klingon word, but
the problem is that so many people use it as equivalent to the English verb
"to love", which isn't really right.
>It seems we treat the cards almost as highly as cannon... Which even
>cannon alone is treated to highly...
TKD is not the only source that we consider to be canon. Klingon for the
Galactic Traveller, The Klingon Way, the Skybox cards, the audio tapes, Marc
Okrand's HolQeD articles, and various personal and Internet communications
verifiably from Marc Okrand himself are all treated as canon.
>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.
Within the Star Trek universe, I would imagine that universal translators
would save a lot of effort on this particular count.
>Vulcans usually say alot of nothing
There are a couple of efforts that have been made at devising Vulcan
languages around the phrases and words in the films and the various books.
One was made by professional linguists K. and M. Zvelebil, and can be seen
here: http://www.marketaz.co.uk/StarTrek/Vulcan/Vulcan.html
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
_________________________________________________________________
Search for local singles online @ Lavalife - Click here
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Flavalife9%2Eninemsn%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fclickthru%2Fclickthru%2Eact%3Fid%3Dninemsn%26context%3Dan99%26locale%3Den%5FAU%26a%3D21550&_t=21550&_r=endtext&_m=EXT