tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 04 08:33:54 2011
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Loose Klingon
This hypothesis makes it easier to write loosely
but harder to write strictly and harder to read.
It becomes trapdoor code, a one way passage into
which meaning can be placed but from which it can
never be retrieved. The more ways a word can be
used the harder it is to parse a sentence or to
write a sentence that cannot be incorrectly
parsed. I've just about had it with qogh alone: I
can't write qogh now without specifying either
nach qogh or yopwaH qogh, and I know to do that
now, but so many other innocent words I string
together with one meaning and leave people
thinking I've said something completely different.
o' tlhingan Hol qaparHa'qu' 'a qamuS.
At 20:11 26/11/2011, David Trimboli wrote:
More and more, the new canon we see appears to
break rules. I believe that some of it is purely
error, mostly the forgotten rules of no Type 5s
on the first noun of a noun-noun, net instead of
'e', and Type 7 on the second verb of a
sentence-as-object. However, there are some
"rules" that I am beginning to question. Verbs
as nouns These keep showing up. "It is not known
if all verbs can be used as nouns," says the TKD
Addendum, and we know that {tlhutlh} can never
be a noun, but what if most verbs can indeed be
used as nounsâ??at least, the ones that seem to
have obvious meanings as nouns? Variable
semantics The semantic roles of subjects and
objects in Klingon seem to change all the time.
I can {mev}, I can {mev} you, making you you
{mev}. Sometimes we're given explicit
instructions on how to use a verb, but most of
the time we rely on the semantics of the English
translation. Suppose Klingon semantics aren't so
strict? Suppose you can use any semantic role
you like as subject or object, so long as
context makes it clear what you mean? {jIDIng}
"I spin," {gho vIDIng} "I spin the circle," {gho
vIDIngmoH} "I spin the circle." (The difference
between the latter two is an explicit indication
({-moH}) that the subject is the agent, as
opposed to, say, an instrument or a force.
Other? There may be other examples of "loose
grammar" that I haven't thought of. I'm not sure
whether to take these as signs that Okrand can't
keep the whole thing in his head and makes LOTS
of mistakes, or whether Klingon is supposed to
be more "yeah, whatever" than we give it credit
for. Remember the rigor their grammarians give
to parts of speech... -- SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol