tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 14 04:09:10 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Why Do You Study Klingon?

QeS 'utlh ([email protected]) 

ghItlhpu' Paul, ja':
>ultimately, I'm not convinced using Klingon isn't really just a an exercise 
>in linguistic encryption/decryption.

That's the case for any artificial language. It could be argued that the 
total lack of native speakers makes it useless to study any non-natural 
language.

I study Klingon for several reasons. Firstly, I was drawn to its alien 
phonology, its small lexicon, and its agglutinativity (a feature I like in 
languages). Once I began studying it, I started to appreciate the complexity 
and the nuances of the language. I continue to study it because there's a 
small community of like-minded people who are interesting to listen to, and 
who have the strength of their convictions. I also continue with it because 
it's an excellent exercise in circumlocution, an important skill if you're 
not particularly fluent in a language. Finally, I liked the fact that so 
much of the language had to be gleaned from perusing the canon; I enjoy 
"decoding" new grammar rules and the things that aren't explicitly spelled 
out in TKD.

taH:
>You put forth your own theories on the language, but refuse to actually 
>argue them logically.  It took forever for me to get you to give your 
>theory that the prefixless and /-lu'/less purpose clauses were simply the 
>use of a "raw verb", but you've never given any evidence to the fact that 
>there's any canon evidence that verbs can be used "in the raw".

QIn tlhegh DabuSpu''a'? jIH'e' ngerwIj 'oH. jIH'e' ghunchu'wI''e' je ngoDmey 
DImuch maH cha'. muQochbe' ghunchu'wI'. QInvetlh tIlaDqa'. mu'meyvam 
Dajatlhmo' bItIch.

>What you're missing is that you *are* expanding the language.  You just 
>seem to think it's not worth attempting to reach a group concensus on any 
>given topic.  Is it because you might then have to change your own views to 
>reflect the group?  Or is it because you feel that expanding the definition 
>of the language for your personal purposes is somehow less offensive than 
>if the group came to an agreement and gave the decisions a little more 
>weight?

Why do we have to have consensus? I explained this already: even speakers of 
natural languages differ in what's acceptable and what's not in their 
language. Why can't Klingon speakers be similarly allowed to make their own 
judgments based upon the canon evidence? This {-meH} question is a brilliant 
case in point.

>My goal is that when we have oddities like the purpose clause issue, we 
>discuss the possibilities, try to draw a conclusion that is generally 
>acceptable, and then make sure we write down the conclusion somewhere for 
>future reference.

'ach pagh wIwuqpu', 'ej ghaytan pagh wIwuqtaH! maghoHchuqtaH, 'ach pagh 
wItob. ngerwIj DalajQo', 'ej latlh nger vIlajmeH jIH chonobbe'pu'.

>There are interesting things in the canon examples that don't appear to 
>follow the known grammar.  But there is no desire to actually do anything 
>with that information, because that would be "changing the language".

"No desire" is entirely, absolutely, completely wrong. I postulated a 
possible explanation for one such canon example; my explanation was found 
nowhere explicitly cited in canon. According to your argument, that means I 
am engaged in "changing the language". But *no-one but you* has spoken out 
against my theory, and none other than ghunchu'wI' explicitly agreed with my 
theory, despite that he's the very one you rail against for refusing to 
engage in this sort of behaviour! I quote:

"{ghojmeH taj} ... The lack of prefix is clear.  "Knife for the purpose of 
learning."  I see it as stronger than an indefinite subject -- it's *no* 
subject." (ghunchu'wI', 4 Jan 2007)

"The only reason I can see to argue for {DIlmeH} to modify {DaneH} is so you 
can call it support for your theory.  I believe it makes at least as much 
sense to call it a mistake and say it should have a {vI-} prefix. I believe 
it makes *more* sense to consider it to be an example of correct grammar and 
interpret {DIlmeH Huch} as "payment money"." (ghunchu'wI', 31 Dec 2006)

ghItlhpu' ter'eS, ja':
>Even that won't do any good. Have you ever seen my
>Klingon Grammar Addendum
>(http://teresh.tdonnelly.org/kliaddi.html) which
>attempted to do exactly that?
>It was pretty well received initially, and even
>cited in the KLI FAQ, but I don't think anyone even
>remembers it existed anymore,

vIqaw jIH! {{:) maQochbe'qu' Holtej jIH je. jIHvaD lo'laHbejtaH.
I remember it! I'm with Holtej; I still find it useful.

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: 50% off on Xbox 360, PS and Nintendo Wii titles! 
http://www.play-asia.com/SOap-23-83-4lab-71-bn-49-en-84-k-40-extended.html

Back to archive top level