tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 10 09:28:28 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Changing The Language By Inference (was Re: Purpose Clauses)
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, QeS 'utlh wrote:
> My apologies for the late response to this thread, as I've spent the last
> week and a half on holidays. If I've missed a point that has been summed up
> in a later email, let me know.
ghIQbe' SuvwI' teH! ;)
> Okay, I take exception to your use of asterisks here. I've tried never to
> postulate that my theory is anything more than that - a theory. I'm not
> trying to overrule Okrand, and I thought I'd been particularly careful about
> describing this theory as my opinion, nothing more. If I have overstepped
I meant no disrespect with the asterisks; I just wanted to be clear it was
a proposal -- to make sure people weren't taking the stance that this was
fact "because a Grammarian said so". I know you were putting forth an
opinion.
This kinda gets to the root of the question. When we have people here who
are "experts", and carry an official label like "Grammarian", it's
important to realize that you can, and will, be taken as an authority --
one step removed from Okrand. It is therefore important to be careful how
things are taken. I *do* believe you were careful to state it was an
opinion -- but in the absence of actual fact, that may still be construed
as a license to use that opinion.
Which is why I'd said I don't mind if we presented the idea as an
*explanation*, but not to actually *use* it to craft new
sentences/phrases.
If you were looking at English with an ruleset as ill-defined as the TKD,
and you had the rule, "Past tense on verbs ending in 'e', you add 'd'."
And then you see a canon example, "His picture was taken." and then infer
you can write the sentence, "The driver's license was faken." We
might infer a rule about past tense using "-n" from the canon example, but
it would be improper to *use* that rule when creating new sentences (at
least not without knowing for sure what the *real* rule is). Of course,
without that canon example, we might be inclined to say "His picture was
taked." Which is also invalid English *but it follows the rules we were
given*.
> Yet again, how would you interpret {Dochvetlh DIlmeH Huch 'ar DaneH?}? Why
> don't you see this as a canon example of the sort you're talking about? It's
> exactly the example that you say you're looking for. I refuse to ignore it
> as a mistake on Okrand's part.
How would you interpret "You's car is broke"? There's a difference
between being understandable, and being correct; I *understand* what is
said by /DIlmeH/ but I wonder if it's a minor error, since there are so
few canon examples where the indefinite subject is implied but not
specifically noted with the /-lu'/ suffix (and there are several examples
where /-lu'/ *is* used as would be expected).
> If you use {rarlu'meH mu'}, the term still won't change.
>
>> it seems more... convenient (for lack of a better term) to craft a noun
>> phrase that does NOT change on usage,
>
> Why, may I ask? What would be wrong with having a noun phrase that *does*
> change according to usage? (Aside from the Anglocentric desire to have a
> simple noun phrase in Klingon corresponding to a simple noun phrase in
> English, a goal which I personally see as futile at best, I can think of no
> other reason.)
The answer to both of your points is the same, which I sheepishly admit
is, as you say, Anglo-centric... To me, suffixes, at the very least,
change a term. /rar/ is not the same term is /rarlaH/, for a very obvious
exmaple. But even saying that, I can see /rar/ and /rarpu'/ as being
effectively the same -- the Anglocentric idea that tense modification does
not modify a term, but prefixes do -- ie. connect and connected are the
same term, save tense, but connect and disconnect (or connectable) are
different terms.
> {rarmeH mu'}, {rarbogh mu'} and {rarwI'} might all be understood in context.
> I would use {rarmeH mu'}.
I'm sold, really. Part of the problem has been the anti-expansion league
that has been present on this list for decades now. It was probably more
than ten years ago I proposed we put together some jargon for talking
about computers, and was met with a resounding, "We can't do that, only
Okrand can do that..." Alan continues to rally this cry. I'd since come
around to accept the idea, but at the same time, feel that we need to be
able to agree to fill in some of the gaps as best we can, and using
phrases was the easiest way to do that. Then the trick was to agree on
the phrases.
The trouble I've had is reconciling the "we can't change the language"
attitudes with the "we're going to assume we can infer indefinite subjects
on purpose noun clauses because we have one sentence that seems to
unambiguously indicate this, and one sentence that was translated as if
that were the case." To me, that's changing the language -- at least if
you're going to then use that idea for the construction of new words.
The other problem I have had is the attitude around this whole discussion.
I was excited to get some movement going when I suggested we put together
some phrases for linguistics terms, and I thought the discussions we had
early on were good. I'm disappointed by the attitude I've received from
some of the other people on this list (I think everyone can guess who they
are). I fail to see why I should take the ideas that purpose noun clauses
work this way, based on the one unambiguous example, but I get no respect
when I put forth that they can work for *all* purpose clauses when I show
up with the /tlhutlhmeH/ example. When I try to sum everything up, so
we're all on the same page, I'm told I'm wasting my time, and given a
trite answer to my retread question because that person doesn't feel the
KLI mailing list should have English on it.
I find myself in the same position the last time my interest in the
language was piqued -- the membership of this list is not conducive to
original contribution. You either find people complaining that this list
is simply for people to speak, in Klingon, about random crap, or you find
people who believe they are the right-hand-of-Okrand and smack down any
suggestion or argument that differs with their worldview.
Doq asked how the language will survive if people don't speak. I say, how
will the language survive if nobody's interested in talking to those who
speak it?
...Paul
** ...Paul, [email protected], Insane Engineer **
** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
"Magick happens."
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}