[91129] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Noun cases
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Qovrobyn@flyingstart.ca)
Sun Dec 4 19:51:06 2011
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 16:45:16 -0800
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: Qov robyn@flyingstart.ca>
In-Reply-To: <CABDLMbV9UC=HUahoBU2SXBAPEYqqzPOrZowP99D5AM0dyiHkdQ@mail.g
mail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
--===============4925470880470187376==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="=====================_1792867792==.ALT"
--=====================_1792867792==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 11:52 04/12/2011, Andr=C3=A9 M=C3=BCller wrote:
>That's not how linguistics works nowadays.
vISov. qech vIQIj neH. The question was asked,=20
"why would Klingon be anything like Latin?" and I=20
understood why the original poster had made that=20
reference, so I was just making it more explicit.
>Maybe back in the 50s that was common, but=20
>certainly not in the last decades. I still know=20
>some old grammars and descriptions of "exotic"=20
>languages being described like "The [common=20
>Latinide concept A] is expressed as XYZ." or=20
>"The superlative is expressed by this-and-that=20
>means." (which in reality the language simply doesn't have a superlative).
Exactly. You're providing more examples for the same point.
>People who object to English split infinitives=20
>are usually mutually exclusive to linguists, mind you.
But you're not pretending they don't exist, are=20
you? So you know that the influence of that=20
original Latin grammar persists to this day.=20
Linguists know a lot of things about language=20
that most people don't. But I find that linguists=20
are so familiar with the way language really=20
works that they are sometimes surprisingly=20
ignorant of what people without linguistics=20
training actually believe. I'm trying to remember=20
the title of a linguistics paper I saw that was=20
amusingly parallel to "Scientists discover hitting hand with hammer hurts."
>So, what you describe here, are not rules, but=20
>mere common patterns of description.
Did someone call them rules? Oh I guess I did,=20
but only in the negative. "Common patterns of=20
description" is a much better description, what I=20
was getting at by mashing into boxes.
>These got more and more independent of old=20
>school grammars for European languages like=20
>Latin and Greek. Try reading a modern grammar for a non-Indo-European=
language.
I have. And when someone who learned the basics=20
of her first foreign languages thirty years ago=20
out of fifty year old textbooks meets Khmer, the=20
first thing she tries to do is to find SOME boxes=20
to put the concepts in, even if they are Klingon=20
boxes. It's nice to have something to attach new knowledge to.
> From today's (and also 1984's) viewpoint of=20
> linguistics, Klingon is indeed quite a bit=20
> exotic, but not because the grammatical cases=20
> are somehow different from Latin (I still fail=20
> to see the exoticness of the Klingon case
It's probably not that different from Russian=20
with the tenses removed, but I'm told that case=20
usage is one of the best ways to mark a=20
non-native speaker of Russian. You grow up with=20
it or you never quite get it right. :-(
> [or let's say type 5 noun-suffix] system), but=20
> because some features are typologically rare or=20
> uncommon on the planet (like OVS standard word=20
> order or that N-N constructions are head-final=20
> while N-Adj constructions are head-initial) or=20
> because some features usually don't occur=20
> together. Or would you call the fact that=20
> Klingon has an aspect system instead of a tense=20
> system a "deliberate" method to defy "future=20
> attempts to put Klingon in those boxes", too?
It wasn't my thesis. I was just providing an=20
explanation of the Latin thing. I have been told=20
that Marc went out of his way to make Klingon as=20
unexpected as possible in comparison to Earth=20
norms, in many ways. Translations of sample text=20
in TKD makes it seem as though -pu' was=20
originally a tense marker, though. Or maybe Marc=20
was never that hot at languages with aspect, either.
>Languages with aspect but no tense aren't=20
>uncommon, see Chinese or Thai for example. And they're well known, too.
I don't know them. Thanks to speaking a language=20
with no tense and one with no aspect I now make=20
no attempt to learn either as a tourist, and just=20
throw in time stamps and a big smile.
>One could actually get some kind of measure of=20
>the grammatical exoticness of Klingon or at=20
>least an overview. Compare for instance the=20
>distribution of features in the natural=20
>languages (WALS) of the world with the features Klingon has (CALS):
><http://wals.info/>http://wals.info/
>http://cals.conlang.org/language/klingon
>
>That could give a more objective view on how=20
>much Klingon differs from natural languages and "the rules".
Different question, but it would be interesting to see.
-Qov
P.S. I've just realized why I get two copies of a=20
lot of list messages: people when you're using=20
reply all to get around the lousy new list=20
system, make sure tlhingan-hol@kli.org and the=20
stoli address aren't both in there.
>Greetings,
>- Andr=C3=A9
>
>
>2011/12/4 Qov <<mailto:robyn@flyingstart.ca>robyn@flyingstart.ca>
>All kinds of languages with little or no Latin=20
>ancestry have been harshly mashed into that=20
>mould because someone sometime around the 13th=20
>century wrote a Latin grammar that became THE=20
>standard for not only all subsequent Latin=20
>grammars but all grammars of all languages=20
>compiled ever after. It's the reason people=20
>object to English split infinitives, for example.
>
>So Klingon wouldn't follow such rules but a=20
>linguist compiling a language could easily have=20
>deliberately defied future attempts to put Klingon in those boxes.
>
>- Qov
>
>
>At 16:07 28/11/2011, Noah Bogart wrote:
>>Why would Klingon follow any sort of rules or models followed in Latin?
>>
>>On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Lucifuge=20
>>Rofocale <<mailto:fiat_knox@yahoo.co.uk>fiat_knox@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> > > Do you think that Marc Okrand may have=20
>> deliberately designed the language to break the convention of
>> > > noun cases?
>> > What convention?
>>The convention that nouns have to have=20
>>recognisable declensions, following the model of Latin.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tlhingan-hol mailing list
><mailto:Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkin=
gdom.org
>http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
>http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--=====================_1792867792==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<body>
At 11:52 04/12/2011, Andr=C3=A9 M=C3=BCller wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">That's not how linguistics wo=
rks
nowadays. </blockquote><br>
vISov. qech vIQIj neH. The question was asked, "why would Klingon be
anything like Latin?" and I understood why the original poster had
made that reference, so I was just making it more explicit. <br><br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">Maybe back in the 50s that wa=
s
common, but certainly not in the last decades. I still know some old
grammars and descriptions of "exotic" languages being described
like "The [common Latinide concept A] is expressed as XYZ." or
"The superlative is expressed by this-and-that means." (which
in reality the language simply doesn't have a superlative).
</blockquote><br>
Exactly. You're providing more examples for the same point. <br><br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">People who object to English
split infinitives are usually mutually exclusive to linguists, mind
you.</blockquote><br>
But you're not pretending they don't exist, are you? So you know
that the influence of that original Latin grammar persists to this day.
Linguists know a lot of things about language that most people don't. But
I find that linguists are so familiar with the way language really works
that they are sometimes surprisingly ignorant of what people without
linguistics training actually believe. I'm trying to remember the title
of a linguistics paper I saw that was amusingly parallel to
"Scientists discover hitting hand with hammer hurts."<br><br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">So, what you describe here, a=
re
not rules, but mere common patterns of description. </blockquote><br>
Did someone call them rules? Oh I guess I did, but only in the negative.
"Common patterns of description" is a much better description,
what I was getting at by mashing into boxes.<br><br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">These got more and more
independent of old school grammars for European languages like Latin and
Greek. Try reading a modern grammar for a non-Indo-European
language.</blockquote><br>
I have. And when someone who learned the basics of her first foreign
languages thirty years ago out of fifty year old textbooks meets Khmer,
the first thing she tries to do is to find SOME boxes to put the concepts
in, even if they are Klingon boxes. It's nice to have something to
attach new knowledge to.<br><br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">From today's (and also 1984's=
)
viewpoint of linguistics, Klingon is indeed quite a bit exotic, but not
because the grammatical cases are somehow different from Latin (I still
fail to see the exoticness of the Klingon case</blockquote><br>
It's probably not that different from Russian with the tenses removed,
but I'm told that case usage is one of the best ways to mark a non-native
speaker of Russian. You grow up with it or you never quite get it right.
:-(<br><br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D""> [or let's say type 5
noun-suffix] system), but because some features are typologically rare or
uncommon on the planet (like OVS standard word order or that N-N
constructions are head-final while N-Adj constructions are head-initial)
or because some features usually don't occur together. Or would you call
the fact that Klingon has an aspect system instead of a tense system a
"deliberate" method to defy "future attempts to put
Klingon in those boxes", too? </blockquote><br>
It wasn't my thesis. I was just providing an explanation of the Latin
thing. I have been told that Marc went out of his way to make
Klingon as unexpected as possible in comparison to Earth norms, in many
ways. Translations of sample text in TKD makes it seem as though -pu' was
originally a tense marker, though. Or maybe Marc was never that hot at
languages with aspect, either.<br><br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">Languages with aspect but no
tense aren't uncommon, see Chinese or Thai for example. And they're well
known, too.</blockquote><br>
I don't know them. Thanks to speaking a language with no tense and one
with no aspect I now make no attempt to learn either as a tourist, and
just throw in time stamps and a big smile.<br><br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">One could actually get some k=
ind
of measure of the grammatical exoticness of Klingon or at least an
overview. Compare for instance the distribution of features in the
natural languages (WALS) of the world with the features Klingon has
(CALS):<br>
<a href=3D"http://wals.info/">http://wals.info/</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://cals.conlang.org/language/klingon" eudora=3D"autourl">
http://cals.conlang.org/language/klingon</a><br><br>
That could give a more objective view on how much Klingon differs from
natural languages and "the rules".</blockquote><br>
Different question, but it would be interesting to see.<br><br>
-Qov<br><br>
P.S. I've just realized why I get two copies of a lot of list messages:
people when you're using reply all to get around the lousy new list
system, make sure tlhingan-hol@kli.org and the stoli address aren't both
in there.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">Greetings,<br>
- Andr=C3=A9<br><br>
<br>
2011/12/4 Qov
<<a href=3D"mailto:robyn@flyingstart.ca">robyn@flyingstart.ca</a>><br>
<dl>
<dd>All kinds of languages with little or no Latin ancestry have been
harshly mashed into that mould because someone sometime around the 13th
century wrote a Latin grammar that became THE standard for not only all
subsequent Latin grammars but all grammars of all languages compiled ever
after. It's the reason people object to English split infinitives, for
example.<br><br>
<dd>So Klingon wouldn't follow such rules but a linguist compiling a
language could easily have deliberately defied future attempts to put
Klingon in those boxes.<font color=3D"#888888"><br><br>
<dd>- Qov</font><br><br>
<br>
<dd>At 16:07 28/11/2011, Noah Bogart wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">
<dd>Why would Klingon follow any sort of rules or models followed in
Latin?<br><br>
<dd>On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Lucifuge Rofocale
<<a href=3D"mailto:fiat_knox@yahoo.co.uk">fiat_knox@yahoo.co.uk</a>>
wrote:
<dl>
<dd>> > Do you think that Marc Okrand may have deliberately
designed the language to break the convention of=20
<dd>> > noun cases?<br>
<dd>> What convention?<br>
<dd>The convention that nouns have to have recognisable declensions,
following the model of Latin. </blockquote>
</dl><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Tlhingan-hol mailing list<br>
<dd><a href=3D"mailto:Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org">
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href=3D"http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol" eu=
dora=3D"autourl">
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol</a><br><br>
</dl><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tlhingan-hol mailing list<br>
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org<br>
<a href=3D"http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol" eu=
dora=3D"autourl">
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol</a>
</blockquote></body>
</html>
--=====================_1792867792==.ALT--
--===============4925470880470187376==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============4925470880470187376==--
