[1002] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: verbs in compounds (was: Re: epithets (taHqeq))
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Thu Jun 17 05:04:54 1993
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: Ken_Beesley.PARC@xerox.com
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1993 13:58:35 PDT
In-Reply-To: "krankor@codex.prds.cdx.mot:com:Xerox's message of Tue, 15 Jun 199
Krankor:
>>How <do> we translate them? Well, I think you have to take them on
a case-by-case basis, but it very well may be the case that often
the answer is simply "You can't." <<
Quite right, for at least two reasons. 1. We may not be able to translate
them *directly* or anything approaching directly because the target language
has a completely different culturally-based vocabulary; it may well be the case
that a compound word in English might have to be translated as an involved
syntactic paraphrase. That's just the way it is, even on earth. E.g.
redheaded Klingons seem to be as rare as readheaded Chinese, so it's unlikely
that Klingon (or Chinese) has any easy way to talk about them. 2. Right now
we simply do not know how to express all kinds of notions in Klingon because
the available linguistic description is so sketchy, especially the syntax. You
can hardly write two non-trivial sentences without finding yourself up against
the wall of ignorance.
There seem to be two reactions to the paucity of information and the complete
lack of informants.
The liberal approach, exemplified by those who are actually trying to learn and
use Klingon as presently described, requires (in the best light) imagination
and ingenuity when using the available description. On the negative side, the
pressures of trying to use a language so sketchily described lead almost
unavoidably to "making things up" and drawing analogies from English and other
human languages. Given the thousands of ways that human languages really do
express semantic concepts, it is highly unlikely that anything that seems
"normal" or "natural" to us can be reliably reflected onto Klingon.
The conservative school (to which I belong) holds that it's hardly worth trying
to speak and write Klingon at this stage. Anything we invent, guess or agree
on is almost certain to be shot down by Okrand in the course of time. The best
we can do is compile lists of questions and apply polite pressure on Okrand and
Pocket Books for official clarification.
Krankor:
>>the more I think about it, the more I
conclude that compounds are not really rule-based.<<
>>in the end, compound words are not about syntax,
they are about vocabulary. <<
>>Compounds appear to not be rule-based in terran languages
with which I am familiar; I suppose it is true that that need not
carry over into Klingon.<<
The question here has to do with the productivity of compounds. In languages
that allow compounding, the productivity varies considerably, and we should
avoid taking languages like English or French as the standard. On the analogy
of "redhead," I once heard a non-native speaker refer to another woman as a
"blackhead," which was understood completely but got a big laugh. English
compounding is only semi-productive. Compounds like "redhead" and "blackhead"
were coined at some point in time and somehow caught on and became established
with a standard meaning. English compounds can be made up on the spot and
sanctified almost immediately by the context, but the mechanism is not nearly
as free and productive as in German, where new compounds are plentifully
sprinkled through the newspaper every day. (See Mathews' _Morphology_, 1974,
for an extended discussion of the semi-productivity of English morphology.)
Some polysynthetic languages (Eskimo) and other languages with
"noun-incorporation" allow compound-like morphological constructions that are
highly productive.
This example is from Sproat's _Morphology and Computation_, p. 21.
qaya/:liyu/:lu/:ni "he was excellent (yu-) at making (-li-) kayaks (qaya:-)"
This one word translates as a whole English sentence and includes the noun
"kayak," with a patient-like role, as part of the word. Such words are freely
constructed.
My only real point here is that Klingon compounds and their productivity will
follow their own rules, whatever they are. Observations from human languages
just can't be carried over reliably. Considering the fact that Okrand went to
some effort to make Klingon different from English and from other commonly
studied Indo-European languages, observations from languages like English and
French are particularly unlikely to carry over into Klingon.
Beesley's Assumption: If English does X, Klingon probably doesn't do X.
Ken Beesley
