[100448] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] paq'batlh text for Bing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com)
Thu Mar 19 13:14:56 2015
From: lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <550AFDE0.1090100@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:14:36 -0400
To: "tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org"
<tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
Being able to speak a language with a limited population of speakers is fun=
, and I suspect it is good for my mind, expanding the depth of meaning that=
anything I translate contains because of this sometimes jarring difference=
between the scope and focus of the two radically different languages. The =
thought gets polished in the parsing.
But starting with the population of people who think they can just use Bing=
and not have to learn the language, do you really expect anyone to put in =
the actual hours of effort it takes to learn the language? I suspect that a=
ll we=92ll accomplish is lose the capacity to write a secret to someone in =
a language few outsiders could understand. Now, EVERYONE will be able to ha=
ck really badly done Klingon for mild amusement.
And that=92s pretty much where their effort will stop.
I don=92t care about people who write gibberish in pseudo-Klingon. Why do y=
ou? Do you think our cultural situation is improved because casual passers-=
by can write slightly more meaningful gibberish with the aid of computers?
I would LOVE to have more people to speak Klingon with, but I want THEM to =
be doing the reading and writing and speaking and hearing. I don=92t want t=
hem going to Bing or some other translator and have it handle the work, bec=
ause if I wanted that, why bother dealing with them at all? I could just us=
e Bing or some other translator myself.
My favorite episode of the use of Klingon in my life was a very emotional c=
onversation among Seqram, Qov and myself, full of tears and reassurance, st=
ress and comfort between three people who didn=92t have to drop back to som=
e other language to have the conversation just because it was a real conver=
sation instead of just practicing. It was beautiful.
And Bing will never be the root cause of anything close to that. Nor will a=
ny other programmed crutch.
I=92m already overly reliant upon a lexicon because of lack of practice. As=
are most of us. We don=92t need a sturdier crutch.
We need spiritual spark.
lojmIt tI=92wI=92 nuv =91utlh
Retired Door Repair Guy
> On Mar 19, 2015, at 12:48 PM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
> =
> Am 19.03.2015 um 17:14 schrieb Robyn Stewart:
>> Reason #1: Improving the worst Klingon on the net, as well as the best.
> =
> Not only the net, there are many other sources, even licensed Star Trek b=
ooks(!) using Bing, like the klingon star chart in the book "Stellar Cartog=
raphy".
> (see http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StellarCartography for details)
> =
>> It=92s still going to need work by an expert to be good Klingon, but it
>> will be closer to Klingon than to gibberish.
> =
> As Qov says, Bing will NEVER reach the skill of an experienced Klingon Sp=
eaker.
> =
>> Reason #6: Transference
>> too, on the grounds that if more people learn to speak Klingon it will
>> dilute the status of your rare skill?
> =
> It's like asking a professor why he is teaching his students, risking the=
y may get better and more skilled than him, and the professor may lose his =
job?
> =
> -- =
> Lieven L. Litaer
> aka Quvar valer 'utlh
> http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher
> http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StellarCartography
> http://www.klingonwiki.net/De/Freiberg
> =
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
