tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat May 03 00:26:18 2008

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

getting off-topic with {latlh} (was Re: Klingon WOTD: ngIp (verb))

Rohan Fenwick ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

jIjatlh:> No, but it's one of the most common bound morphemes in
>Klingon.mujang Doq, ja':>In that case, it is a bad example to bring up when one is talking>about a "noun-noun" construction, since a morpheme is not a>noun. Okrand has explicitly said of compound nouns in TKD section
3.2.3: "These nouns probably at one time were formed by
combining simple nouns, but one or all of the nouns forming the
complex noun are no longer in use, so it is not possible (without
extensive etymological research) to know what the individual
pieces mean". It may be impossible to speculate on the origins of
some such elements, but the existence of {nal} in the other
canon terms {be'nal}, {'IrneHnal}, {'e'mamnal}, {me'nal},
{tennuSnal}, {'e'nal} and {nalqaD} show that this is virtually
certain to have been the case with {loDnal}. Consider that the
"etymological research" that Okrand refers to. But I say again: the quote was taken out of context, and mycomments about {loDnal} were not intended to apply more
generally. I was arguing *from* {peQ chem} *to* {loDnal}, not
the other way around. From what Sangqar was saying (and even just from my quote) I thought it was clear that {peQ chem} was the example, not {loDnal}.>Also, bound morphemes or bound nouns, for that matter, are
>not the same thing as a noun-noun construction. No, but as Okrand has explicitly said, many of them probably
*were*. Either way, though, you might notice that I never said anything
about "making new compound nouns". What you wrote about
why we shouldn't create new compound nouns is basically
preaching to the converted. I did not, and nor will I now, defend
the creation of new compound nouns when we have a perfectly
valid device to do that already. All I was doing was trying to
explain a possible origin for a compound noun that already exists
- and trying to use Okrand's own statement about compound
nouns (TKD 3.2.3) to do so. >We can't just mimmic patterns we think we are beginning to>recognize. Just because we recognize something as a pattern>doesn't mean it actually is one. No, but how much evidence do we need before we can considersomething as a pattern? Language is systemic. On the whole, things tend to behave in similar ways. This is especiallyimportant in Klingon, where so much of the language has *not*
been explicitly explained, and a lot of what we do has to be
justified by examining the language in use. For example, I have a
fairly complex stance on subject-prefixes used on {-meH}
clauses. My opinion has never been explicitly laid out by Okrand,
but I feel the canon justifies it. Canon examples are basically all
we have, and usually if you can justify something by using canon
examples, then people won't have a problem with you using it.
Saying that "canon supports the construction X with the meaning Y" is stating a belief in the likely existence of a hitherto
unclarified rule of Klingon grammar. If you ever use an example
from (say) TKW to justify any position, you're implying that you
believe in the existence of a rule that Okrand hasn't explicitly
outlined. And whatever TKD is, it never pretends to be either
comprehensive or conclusive:
 
"The grammatical sketch is intended to be an outline of Klingon
grammar, not a complete description." (TKD preface)
 
I guess that's one reason why I don't understand why you object
so strenuously to the traditional translation and usage of {latlh}.
We have canon examples of it and other nouns (most notably
the quantifying nouns {Hoch}, {pagh}, {bID} and {'op}) used in
noun-noun constructions where the noun-noun relationship isn't
a straightforward possessive, so why do you find the usage of
{latlh} in such a way to be so controversial? I admit that the
usage of {latlh} has never been explained by Okrand in the same
way as the quantifying nouns, but aren't the canon examples
that we have enough to at least postulate a rule for its
usage? To do otherwise greatly restricts what we can and
cannot do in Klingon.
 >{peQ chem} is an odd example, since Okrand never gave us the>word {chem} in any of his word lists. For all we know, this
>could have been a typo and he might have intended
>{peQchem}, since all other appearances of {chem} are second
>syllables of compound nouns {HoSchem, pIvchem, Surchem}. Now this IS a valid point, and one I didn't realise when I wrote
the original comment. I will concede that viewing {peQ chem} in
this way puts the element *{chem} in the same basket as
*{nal}, and destroys my original argument. But ghunchu'wI''s
example of {Hoch}, to which the other quantifying nouns can be
added, still parallels {latlh}, and demonstrates that the noun-
noun relationship isn't always as straightforward as we'd perhaps
like it to be.>Are you ready to say that {chemvaH} is somehow related to a>"field holster"? That's a classic straw man argument. There is absolutely
no evidence of any kind in Klingon that {chemvaH} should be
related to either {chem} or {vaH}, any more than {-pu'} "plural
beings capable of using language" should be related to {pu'}
"phaser". By contrast, with {loDnal}, no less than seven other
canon terms, in related fields, use the element *{nal}. Hence, I
don't think it's unreasonable to *postulate* the existence of a
separate term *{nal} in an earlier stage of the language. The
element *{chem} is the same; it's used in four different terms
relating to energy fields. That's not coincidence, and even if we
don't use the element as an independent word or as a productive
bound affix (and I'm certainly not suggesting we should), I think
it's misleading to believe that the element doesn't itself carry
meaning.>I honestly believe that any time you or anybody else
>pontificates mu'lIj DawIvDI' yIyep'eghmoH; mutIch mu'vam. 'utbe'chu'.Choose your words carefully; I find your unnecessary implicationinsulting.>about compound nouns and their etymologies or the meanings
>of their undefined syllables, you are stepping out of bounds in
>terms of actually studying the language. Instead, you are
>writing interesting fiction with no meaningful reference to the
>language. Most aspects of Klingon study are fictional. When we say that "AKlingon wouldn't say that", we're engaging in the fictional cultureof the language's speakers, which doesn't strictly have anythingto do with the grammar. What do you find so objectionable aboutengaging with the fictional *history* of the language, part of which Okrand himself has already revealed (witness the section
on {no' Hol} in KGT)? Allan Wechsler wrote an article in the very
first issue of HolQeD about the phonology of a possible Klingon
protolanguage. Several others through the years have looked
at various levels of pre-Klingon in an internal sense, both on and
off this list. And if I'm using canon to justify my idea, how is
there "no meaningful reference to the language"? On top of that, how do you define "study the language"? I alsofind the study of these aspects of Klingon to be interesting froman external point of view. I like trying to find themes of meaningthat Okrand has consciously or unconsciously inserted into thelanguage. There are a lot of interesting sets in Klingon that showsigns of being not entirely arbitrary. These things interest me;I'm interested not only in the language itself, but also in itsexternal construction, and in how Okrand may or may not haveconceptualised various parts of the language. The pair {-bej}
"certainly" and {bej} "to watch" is a great example of that. For
me, that still falls within the purview of "studying the language". Either way, what I said in my original message was *in directresponse* to someone who asked why {loDnal} might meanwhat it does. I never said that canon could explain ALL suchcases, but I certainly thought it could explain this specific case.As it turns out, with regard to the canon I cited I made amistake and will happily admit to that, but I still think that mybasic premise was valid given what Okrand says about theorigins of compound nouns in TKD 3.2.3. If you don't like that,or don't agree, then I'm afraid there's nothing more I can addon the topic (and in fact, I will add no more, since it's well off
the topic).
 
>Show me the chapter in TKD that explains this, or site the
>interview with Okrand or even a second-hand account of a
>conversation somebody had with him where he explained how
>this works. I DARE you.
 
Again, I don't appreciate your confrontational attitude here. You
know and I know that Okrand has never explicitly explained how
to use {latlh}. But it's my opinion that we should be able to
derive general postulates from canon examples without having to
have them explicitly vetted, so long as those postulates (a)
conform with Okrand's explicit statements on the language (of
which there are none in this case), (b) aren't violated by
other canon examples (which {latlh tlhInganpu'} isn't, since
{latlh HIvje'Daq} is ambiguous and the sense "another person's
face" from {latlh qabDaq} comes from the English translation,
whereas it is ambiguous in the original Klingon), and (c)
are subject to change if relevant new canon comes to light.
 
If your opinion differs, then further argument is fruitless, since
that's a fundamental difference of philosophy on how you and
I view Klingon that can't be resolved by reference to canon. I'm
not entirely sure I want to continue anyway, as I don't think
either of us is going to convince the other any time soon.
 
QeS 'utlh tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pab po'wI'(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
_________________________________________________________________
Be part of history. Take part in Australia's first e-mail archive with Email Australia.
http://emailaustralia.ninemsn.com.au

Back to archive top level