tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 11 07:04:15 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Changing The Language By Inference (was Re: Purpose Clauses)
- From: "QeS 'utlh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Changing The Language By Inference (was Re: Purpose Clauses)
- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 01:01:23 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' Paul, ja':
>ghIQbe' SuvwI' teH! ;)
tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhchugh, jIghIQbe'bej. {{;)
>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.
vIqelba'pu'qu', 'ej DaH jIHvaD qay'taHqu'. <pabpo'> jIH, 'ach muvoqbe'nIStaH
Hoch. mangachlaH 'e' chaw'mo' ghu'vetlh vIjatlhlu'chugh <bImuj 'e' vIHar>,
jIbelqu'. pab wIwaHchu' 'e' chaw' ghu'vetlh. Canon wInuD 'e' chaw'. veH
wItu' 'e' chaw'.
Obviously that's something I have already considered, and that I still have
trouble with sometimes. What people need to understand is that just because
I'm a Grammarian doesn't mean I'm always to be trusted. In fact, I take a
great deal of satisfaction in having someone turn around and say "Now look,
I think that's wrong", because it gives an opportunity for debate. It lets
us fully explore an area of the language and test where the boundaries are.
>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.
loQ tlhIngan Hol vuSlu'. qay'. tlhIngan Hol jatlhwI' wItlhoblaHbe'. Canon
ghItlhmey wI<tlhob>laH neH. pab chut (Okrand pab chut, pab chut
ghItlhpu'be'bogh Okrand) toblu'meH, canon ghItlhmey lo'laHchugh vay',
tlhIngan Hol lo'taHvIS pab chutvetlh lupabbogh mu'tlheghmey lo'laH vay' 'e'
vIHarqu'. tlhIngan Hol tInchoHtaHghach luvuS latlh qech; DaH qabbej
ghu'vetlh. pat 'oH Hol'e'. pat 'oH tlhIngan Hol'e' je. latlh De' wIHevpa'
pat wIrurnISmoH. KLI jabbI'IDghom DIS wa'DIch QInmey tIlaD. pIm DISvetlh
tlhIngan Hol DISvam tlhIngan Hol je. latlh qechmey DIyajchoHtaHvIS, choH
Hol. choHtaHghach choHlaHbe' vay'.
The problem is that Klingon as it is is really fairly limited, and
extrapolation is at the heart of what we do, even more so than with any
other language, because of the sparse amount of documentation we have. When
we come across a problem, we can only go on what evidence is available. I'm
of the opinion that if you can support a conclusion with a solid canon-based
backing, then you can justify using it in your own Klingon. Any other
position limits the growth and usefulness of Klingon, and to be blunt, we
can't afford that at the moment. Language is a system. We can only treat
Klingon as though it were totally systematic until we get information to the
contrary. Anyway, if you take a look back at the first couple of years of
the KLI mailing list, and compare that to the sort of Klingon written now,
you'll see there *are* differences. The language does change over time as
our understanding increases. That's just the way it is, I fear.
>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*.
The problem is you can't know something's incorrect until after the fact.
Unfortunately, there are no Klingons who are going to come out and say
something is wrong; we don't have that kind of help. What's to say that,
say, the verb {vergh} "to dock" isn't the only verb in all of Klingon that
can't use any class 6 suffixes? If we're going to be systematic, we have to
say that, yes, it's a verb, and it *probably* takes suffixes the same as any
other verb would. In Klingon, we can't use the rule of "beyond a reasonable
doubt"; we have to go with the lesser standard of "preponderance of the
evidence".
>How would you interpret "You's car is broke"?
You are answering a question with another question.
>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,
You said that if you saw {rarmeH mu' yIlo'} you would understand that as
being support for my hypothesis, but you say you see {Dochvetlh DIlmeH Huch
'ar DaneH} as an error. What is the difference between the two?
>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).
Yes, but never where it's unambiguously part of a noun phrase.
>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.
Ah. I thought you were referring to the change in verb *prefixes*, not
suffixes. Obviously the addition of verb suffixes changes meaning, often
substantially.
>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..."
I wasn't on the list that far back, so I can't comment, I'm afraid.
>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.
No, it's an interpretation of the facts as they stand. Every person is free
to put together Klingon as they see fit *based upon the canon corpus*.
Anything that can't be backed up with evidence from Okrandian canon is
essentially considered dodgy; if you can base your argument upon canon
evidence, you're usually OK to use it, even if some people disagree (Klingon
speakers are often divided upon whether a certain construction is OK to use
- and that itself is OK, because that's the case with any language. I
categorically reject multiple modals like "might should" in English, but
some American dialects accept them. That doesn't stop both forms being
English.)
>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.
If I've been one of those to show disrespect, accept my apologies. Frankly,
I'm not sure what to do with your {tlhutlhmeH} example. It does seem that an
expected prefix or suffix is missing there. However, I think this is
different because there *are* so many counterexamples like {Heghlu'meH QaQ
jajvam}; it's similar to the {telDaq wovmoHwI'mey} on BoP, which apparently
violates an explicitly stated rule in TKD. For noun phrases *only*, there is
no irreconcilable counterexample to my theory. I tried to avoid making
statements about verb clauses as much as I could because I still haven't
completely decided about them, to be honest.
>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,
...which is perfectly acceptable, as that's one of the goals of the list.
>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.
I'm sorry you feel that way; personally, I haven't noticed it of late, but
perhaps I'm coming from the wrong position to be doing so. Experience
speaking Klingon tends to make people far more direct on the mailing list
from what I've seen, and some people find that offensive. (I did when I
first began, too, but now I'm in the position of Grammarian I see the
caution more for what I think it is: an attempt to stop people developing
the language so much that we get another Proechel-like breakaway, which I
frankly don't think the membership can afford.)
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
_________________________________________________________________
Advertisement: Meet Sexy Singles Today @ 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%3D23769&_t=754951090&_r=endtext_lavalife_dec_meet&_m=EXT