tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 11 21:38:06 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Changing The Language By Inference (was Re: Purpose Clauses)

Alan Anderson ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

ja' ...Paul:

> 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.

As I recall the discussion, you wanted "us" to devise a sanctioned  
list of Klingon terms for present-day computer jargon.  My position  
was (and is) that you're welcome to describe whatever you want using  
all the words and tools at your disposal, but declaring a phrase to  
be "the" way to talk about something is out of bounds.

> ...the trick was to agree on the phrases.

I truly don't understand why you consider that so important.  If what  
you say carries the idea you want it to, that should be sufficient.   
If someone else expresses what they want to say in a different way,  
what's the problem?

If want us to agree in advance that e.g. {rarbogh mu'} is to be  
construed as "conjunction", I see *that* as a problem.  That would be  
adding to the vocabulary by fiat, and I hope you agree that we  
shouldn't do that.

> 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."

I think you might be misconstruing the argument.  You keep bringing  
up the idea of "infer indefinite subjects", and that isn't  
necessarily what some of us see is going on.  I tend to see  
constructions like {ghojmeH taj} as using a "raw" verb which entirely  
lacks a subject or object, in a similar way as a construction like  
{veng tInqu'}.

> I fail to see why I should take the ideas that purpose noun clauses
> work this way, based on the one unambiguous example,...

You don't need to base it on one unambiguous example when we have  
several:

   ghojmeH taj "boy's knife"
   pe'meH taj "cutting knife"
   ja'chuqmeH rojHom "truce"

(There are also the ambiguous examples that would be errors if the  
idea were wrong.)

> 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.

I will again point out that this example is not evidence of a purpose  
clause modifying a verb.

> When I try to sum everything up, so we're all on the same page, I'm  
> told I'm wasting my time,...

The problem as I see it is that your apparent goal is not achievable,  
no matter how well you support the side issues.  It feels like you're  
trying not just to get us all on the same page, but to get us all to  
*sign* that page.  I believe that the only consensus you will get  
from the longtime speakers regarding "approved" lists of translated  
jargon is that we shouldn't do it.

> ...and given a trite answer to my retread question because that  
> person doesn't feel the KLI mailing list should have English on it.

You have definitely misunderstood what that person was telling you.   
The point was not that English is discouraged.  The point was that  
you say you want to improve your Klingon language skills, but  
continuing to use English will not help you make progress toward that  
goal.  You are already well past the point where you can make  
yourself understood, and the best way for you to keep getting better  
is simply for you to practice.

> 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.

Please contribute your original ideas and thoughts and stories.  As  
long as they go along with the charter of this list, they are  
definitely welcome.  But if your attempts at "original contribution"  
keep drifting toward creating vocabulary, please keep them to  
yourself.  It is the official policy of the KLI, and of this email  
discussion group, that sanctioned Klingon vocabulary comes only  
through Marc Okrand.

> 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?

I don't understand what you're trying to say.  Do you not see the  
responses when you post in Klingon?

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level