[101638] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Things missing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robyn Stewart)
Thu Oct 29 11:47:03 2015
From: Robyn Stewart <robyn@flyingstart.ca>
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cJOcvuhFoVjQHB2C6KQcUcGqB8LQAGi+EEZLWomY5c4xg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 08:46:42 -0700
To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============1540259972330982334==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=Apple-Mail-8D6DBA97-1A0B-4558-A2BB-5D9C60746616
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--Apple-Mail-8D6DBA97-1A0B-4558-A2BB-5D9C60746616
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
We ask for more canon because something is particularly difficult to express=
, and because we never want to pass up an opportunity to have more, even tho=
ugh in most cases we have more toys than we can play with already.=20
Imagine us back in 1990 when there was mo word for grasp or hold or seize, a=
nd the best we cools manage was ghajchoH. Hamlet was translated with no word=
for window or table. I wrote a novel containing a scene that took place on a=
bridge, not a meH, one over a river, and there's only so many times you can=
write {bIQtIq HeHmey rarmoHbogh ravHom} before you say "Marc, could you ple=
ase ask Maltz how he would refer to a bridge?"
Some people ask for words because they haven't grasped what the words that K=
lingon has can do. It's an honour to be able ask and a greater honour to rec=
eive.=20
We ask for words to talk about the things we want to talk about, but we try t=
o be generous and ensure they are things others want to talk about too. Some=
times people ask for or about words because they think it would be cool if K=
lingon worked in a particular way, did something few languages do, and somet=
imes people pose questions to Marc in that form to stimulate him into respon=
ding.=20
Marc is the only source of canon. Marc has a tendency to appear to confirm p=
eople's theories, by smiling and saying "that's interesting" so we've learne=
d to record his actual words and have witnesses before proclaiming "Marc sai=
d." The controversial cases are projects in which Marc participated without b=
eing the driver: TalkNow was done in collaboration, with, as I understand it=
, Marc providing vocabulary where the standard method of just saying what th=
e thing was didn't work. In theory Marc has approved all the descriptions, a=
nd I think they are excellent. I was naming all the items correctly before s=
eeing the Klingon provided, until I got to my favourite, which to me was cle=
arly a pob taj. I laughed out loud when I saw that the men had called it a r=
ol taj.
paq'batlh was done by a different process. I'm not sure if every page was Ma=
rc's at first draft, but the draft pages were presented to a group of gramma=
rians, two or three of us per page, and we were asked to find errors. We did=
n't know at first that it was Marc's work, and then we started finding unfam=
iliar words, like ngIq. Our proofing pass was done rapidly, hungry, (it was l=
unchtime and others were waiting for us) and in some cases with one of the r=
eviewers reading upside-down. I don't think anyone used reference material. W=
e suggested rewording when something was confusing, but for the most part it=
was adding the lu- prefix, pointing out when a V7 suffix was used after 'e'=
, and trying to get information on the new words. Had we known would still b=
e unclear on usage of ngIq after all this time, we would have pressed harder=
, but I doubt it would have been to any avail.
I wrote this long answer, on my phone no less, before realizing you had aske=
d the questions rhetorically and provided your own long answer. I'll go read=
that properly on my laptop to see what points I want to respond to.=20
- Qov
> On Oct 29, 2015, at 7:17, qunnoQ HoD <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> it was very interesting to read all the various replies,with regard to my o=
riginal post ; still i believe it is important for me to address two issues t=
hat came up. Two issues which i believe were brought forward as questions to=
me.
>=20
> 1. why do you ask for more canon ?
> 2. who is to decide what should be considered valid/canon ?
>=20
> although i could provide short answers to these questions i would rather t=
ake the long way around.
>=20
> lets start by writing some thoughts that may appear irrelevant at first,bu=
t later on,it will be understood why i wrote them.
>=20
> the skill someone has in Klingon can be measured by tests/grammar exercise=
s etc. how would you measure though how much he likes it ? how passionate he=
is about it ? how much he wants to learn it ? is there a test ? a way to fi=
nd out ? i don't think so..
> Klingon (and every other language constructed or not) falls under the cate=
gory "education". Surely not a kind of education you would profit from - pro=
fessionally - but it is a kind of education nevertheless ; What is one of th=
e most basic characteristics/attributes of education ? The fact that it beco=
mes a part of you. It becomes a part of yourself,and no one,no one can ever s=
eparate you from it. Lets say you are an engineer. No matter what happens yo=
u will always be an engineer. Even if war breaks out,even if you find yourse=
lf stranded 1000 miles away from home,you will still be an engineer. Your kn=
owledge is a part of you,and it cannot be separated from you. Ever. Furtherm=
ore education comes as an irreversible process which changes you -irreverseb=
ly too-. You can't unlearn what you have already learned.
> Even if you changed profession,you would still be an engineer.
>=20
> So to answer the first question..=20
>=20
> "why do you ask for more canon ?"
>=20
> It is not that i'm asking for more canon. It is that i want/i demand/accep=
t nothing less than Klingon to be perfect. Yes,now i'm a beginner. But the t=
ime will come,when i will be able to write in Klingon ; when this language w=
ill have been made a part of myself,the same way that my heart is a part of m=
y body. It will be part of my education/skills/abilities and i expect nothin=
g less than for it to be complete. To be as whole as possible. To be far mor=
e superior than any other constructed language. I expect and demand "borg pe=
rfection",the same way that Klingon will have expected from me time/persiste=
nce/patience in order for it to become a part of me.
>=20
> "why do you ask for more canon ? after all you can always find "ways aroun=
d" any deficiencies it may have"
>=20
> ..true, but ask yourselves. If you had a torn posterior cruciate ligament i=
n your knee,would you be ok with it ? You would be in pain from time to time=
,but surely you could find a "way around" it too. You could take meds,use a b=
race,do physical therapy etc,etc. Why would you prefer your knee to be "perf=
ect" ? wouldn't all those "ways around" suffice ?
> You would want your knee to be "perfect" not only because you wouldn't wan=
t to feel pain or activity restrictions. You would want your knee to be perf=
ect because it is a part of your body and you want/demand/accept nothing els=
e,than for it to be perfect.
>=20
> so,because i love Klingon and because it is becoming/will eventually becom=
e one of the languages i speak,because it is becoming a part of myself i wan=
t/demand/accept nothing else than for it to be perfect. Its as simple as tha=
t.
>=20
> Second question..
>=20
> who is to decide what should be considered valid ? who should create canon=
?
>=20
> i believe i'm the last person to answer those questions. as i noticed at t=
he archives,this mailing list goes way back so i think that experienced Klin=
gonists along with Okrand could decide that. Lets approach this from another=
angle ; who's to decide whether a pharmaceutical product is safe ? The FDA o=
f course,right ? Who created the FDA ? The country whose people were to be s=
erved by the FDA.
>=20
> The subject of "fragmentation" came up ; "if an institution would create c=
anon,then wouldn't there be the possibility of schisms in the community,of a=
lternate versions of Klingon cropping up,every time a group of Klingonists w=
ould disagree ?"
>=20
> At first glance this is a valid argument. Even I,would be tempted to agree=
. I mean lets face it. I always buy nexus phones because i want the "pure an=
droid experience". And of course my phone isn't a part of me. How would i be=
ok with any kind of "watered down" version of a language which is to become=
a part of myself ? The answer is that of course i wouldn't be ok ; that's w=
hy i wrote -even in my original post- that this institution would have to be=
recognized as the "sole authority". The same way that the FDA is the only o=
rganization with the authority to act in its area of expertise.
> Surely someone could go on,and still use unsafe health products. But that w=
ould be his choice,and eventually his problem.
>=20
> I truly wonder.. If we were to say that to create an institution which cou=
ld create canon would lead to fragmentation, then would that mean that the o=
pposite would guarantee 100% canon conformity ? that the lack of such an ins=
titution guarantees "purity" ?
>=20
> If Klingon has inherent deficiencies in grammar/vocabulary,then one would b=
e forced to go through all kinds of "linguistic acrobatics" to get the desir=
ed meaning through. Wouldn't that inevitably lead to ambiguity in regard to t=
he meaning he's trying to express ? Why shouldn't i think that all these "ac=
robatics" wouldn't eventually lead to a sentence which's meaning could be in=
terpreted differently depending on the interpretation of the individual list=
ener ?
> So,wouldn't we eventually have a language which's meaning would fragment/d=
issolve depending on the individual ?
>=20
> I can understand perfectly the argument that "what you describe can't ever=
happen for copyright reasons". But i can't accept the argument "even if the=
re weren't copyright issues,then again canon shouldn't be created"
>=20
> It is the law of nature that unless you adapt,unless you overcome deficien=
cies then you'll be rendered obsolete. A law of nature,not mine ; And this i=
s something i do not like,something i do not want,something i do not wish fo=
r a language that is slowly becoming a part of myself.
>=20
> qunnoQ HoD
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:27 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2015 2:16 AM, Tim Stoffel wrote:
>>> Considering what the Klingon language community has accomplished over
>>> the years, it would be a shame to think that the end of Marc Okrand
>>> (which I hope is no time soon!) could be the end of the Klingon
>>> language.
>>>=20
>>> We need a mechanism to keep the language alive.
>>=20
>> Such a mechanism can be dreamed up at such time as Okrand leaves us or de=
cides not to do Klingon anymore. Why try to impose it now? The language won'=
t suddenly evaporate when he's gone.
>>=20
>> --=20
>> SuStel
>> http://trimboli.name
>>=20
>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
>> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--Apple-Mail-8D6DBA97-1A0B-4558-A2BB-5D9C60746616
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3D=
utf-8"></head><body dir=3D"auto"><div>We ask for more canon because somethin=
g is particularly difficult to express, and because we never want to pass up=
an opportunity to have more, even though in most cases we have more toys th=
an we can play with already. </div><div><br></div><div>Imagine us back i=
n 1990 when there was mo word for grasp or hold or seize, and the best we co=
ols manage was ghajchoH. Hamlet was translated with no word for window or ta=
ble. I wrote a novel containing a scene that took place on a bridge, not a m=
eH, one over a river, and there's only so many times you can write {bIQtIq H=
eHmey rarmoHbogh ravHom} before you say "Marc, could you please ask Maltz ho=
w he would refer to a bridge?"</div><div><br></div><div>Some people ask for w=
ords because they haven't grasped what the words that Klingon has can do. It=
's an honour to be able ask and a greater honour to receive. </div><div=
><br></div><div>We ask for words to talk about the things we want to talk ab=
out, but we try to be generous and ensure they are things others want to tal=
k about too. Sometimes people ask for or about words because they think it w=
ould be cool if Klingon worked in a particular way, did something few langua=
ges do, and sometimes people pose questions to Marc in that form to stimulat=
e him into responding. </div><div><br></div><div>Marc is the only sourc=
e of canon. Marc has a tendency to appear to confirm people's theories, by s=
miling and saying "that's interesting" so we've learned to record his actual=
words and have witnesses before proclaiming "Marc said." The controversial c=
ases are projects in which Marc participated without being the driver: TalkN=
ow was done in collaboration, with, as I understand it, Marc providing vocab=
ulary where the standard method of just saying what the thing was didn't wor=
k. In theory Marc has approved all the descriptions, and I think they are ex=
cellent. I was naming all the items correctly before seeing the Klingon prov=
ided, until I got to my favourite, which to me was clearly a pob taj. =
I laughed out loud when I saw that the men had called it a rol taj.</div><di=
v><br></div><div>paq'batlh was done by a different process. I'm not sure if e=
very page was Marc's at first draft, but the draft pages were presented to a=
group of grammarians, two or three of us per page, and we were asked to fin=
d errors. We didn't know at first that it was Marc's work, and then we start=
ed finding unfamiliar words, like ngIq. Our proofing pass was done rapidly, h=
ungry, (it was lunchtime and others were waiting for us) and in some cases w=
ith one of the reviewers reading upside-down. I don't think anyone used refe=
rence material. We suggested rewording when something was confusing, but for=
the most part it was adding the lu- prefix, pointing out when a V7 suffix w=
as used after 'e', and trying to get information on the new words. Had we kn=
own would still be unclear on usage of ngIq after all this time, we would ha=
ve pressed harder, but I doubt it would have been to any avail.</div><div><b=
r></div><div>I wrote this long answer, on my phone no less, before realizing=
you had asked the questions rhetorically and provided your own long answer.=
I'll go read that properly on my laptop to see what points I want to respon=
d to. </div><div><br></div><div>- Qov</div><div><br>On Oct 29, 2015, at=
7:17, qunnoQ HoD <<a href=3D"mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com">mihkoun@gmail.com=
</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"=
><br>it was very interesting to read all the various replies,with regard to m=
y original post ; still i believe it is important for me to address two issu=
es that came up. Two issues which i believe were brought forward as question=
s to me.<br><br>1. why do you ask for more canon ?<br>2. who is to decide wh=
at should be considered valid/canon ?<br><br>although i could provide short a=
nswers to these questions i would rather take the long way around.<br><br>le=
ts start by writing some thoughts that may appear irrelevant at first,but la=
ter on,it will be understood why i wrote them.<br><br>the skill someone has i=
n Klingon can be measured by tests/grammar exercises etc. how would you meas=
ure though how much he likes it ? how passionate he is about it ? how much h=
e wants to learn it ? is there a test ? a way to find out ? i don't think so=
..<br>Klingon (and every other language constructed or not) falls under the c=
ategory "education". Surely not a kind of education you would profit from - p=
rofessionally - but it is a kind of education nevertheless ; What is one of t=
he most basic characteristics/attributes of education ? The fact that it bec=
omes a part of you. It becomes a part of yourself,and no one,no one can ever=
separate you from it. Lets say you are an engineer. No matter what happens y=
ou will always be an engineer. Even if war breaks out,even if you find yours=
elf stranded 1000 miles away from home,you will still be an engineer. Your k=
nowledge is a part of you,and it cannot be separated from you. Ever. Further=
more education comes as an irreversible process which changes you -irreverse=
bly too-. You can't unlearn what you have already learned.<br>Even if you ch=
anged profession,you would still be an engineer.<br><br>So to answer the fir=
st question.. <br><br>"why do you ask for more canon ?"<br><br>It is not tha=
t i'm asking for more canon. It is that i want/i demand/accept nothing less t=
han Klingon to be perfect. Yes,now i'm a beginner. But the time will come,wh=
en i will be able to write in Klingon ; when this language will have been ma=
de a part of myself,the same way that my heart is a part of my body. It will=
be part of my education/skills/abilities and i expect nothing less than for=
it to be complete. To be as whole as possible. To be far more superior than=
any other constructed language. I expect and demand "borg perfection",the s=
ame way that Klingon will have expected from me time/persistence/patience in=
order for it to become a part of me.<br><br>"why do you ask for more canon ?=
after all you can always find "ways around" any deficiencies it may have"<b=
r><br>..true, but ask yourselves. If you had a torn posterior cruciate ligam=
ent in your knee,would you be ok with it ? You would be in pain from time to=
time,but surely you could find a "way around" it too. You could take meds,u=
se a brace,do physical therapy etc,etc. Why would you prefer your knee to be=
"perfect" ? wouldn't all those "ways around" suffice ?<br>You would want yo=
ur knee to be "perfect" not only because you wouldn't want to feel pain or a=
ctivity restrictions. You would want your knee to be perfect because it is a=
part of your body and you want/demand/accept nothing else,than for it to be=
perfect.<br><br>so,because i love Klingon and because it is becoming/will e=
ventually become one of the languages i speak,because it is becoming a part o=
f myself i want/demand/accept nothing else than for it to be perfect. Its as=
simple as that.<br><br>Second question..<br><br>who is to decide what shoul=
d be considered valid ? who should create canon ?<br><br>i believe i'm the l=
ast person to answer those questions. as i noticed at the archives,this mail=
ing list goes way back so i think that experienced Klingonists along with Ok=
rand could decide that. Lets approach this from another angle ; who's to dec=
ide whether a pharmaceutical product is safe ? The FDA of course,right ? Who=
created the FDA ? The country whose people were to be served by the FDA.<br=
><br>The subject of "fragmentation" came up ; "if an institution would creat=
e canon,then wouldn't there be the possibility of schisms in the community,o=
f alternate versions of Klingon cropping up,every time a group of Klingonist=
s would disagree ?"<br><br>At first glance this is a valid argument. Even I,=
would be tempted to agree. I mean lets face it. I always buy nexus phones be=
cause i want the "pure android experience". And of course my phone isn't a p=
art of me. How would i be ok with any kind of "watered down" version of a la=
nguage which is to become a part of myself ? The answer is that of course i w=
ouldn't be ok ; that's why i wrote -even in my original post- that this inst=
itution would have to be recognized as the "sole authority". The same way th=
at the FDA is the only organization with the authority to act in its area of=
expertise.<br>Surely someone could go on,and still use unsafe health produc=
ts. But that would be his choice,and eventually his problem.<br><br>I truly w=
onder.. If we were to say that to create an institution which could create c=
anon would lead to fragmentation, then would that mean that the opposite wou=
ld guarantee 100% canon conformity ? that the lack of such an institution gu=
arantees "purity" ?<br><br>If Klingon has inherent deficiencies in grammar/v=
ocabulary,then one would be forced to go through all kinds of "linguistic ac=
robatics" to get the desired meaning through. Wouldn't that inevitably lead t=
o ambiguity in regard to the meaning he's trying to express ? Why shouldn't i=
think that all these "acrobatics" wouldn't eventually lead to a sentence wh=
ich's meaning could be interpreted differently depending on the interpretati=
on of the individual listener ?<br>So,wouldn't we eventually have a language=
which's meaning would fragment/dissolve depending on the individual ?<br><b=
r>I can understand perfectly the argument that "what you describe can't ever=
happen for copyright reasons". But i can't accept the argument "even if the=
re weren't copyright issues,then again canon shouldn't be created"<br><br>It=
is the law of nature that unless you adapt,unless you overcome deficiencies=
then you'll be rendered obsolete. A law of nature,not mine ; And this is so=
mething i do not like,something i do not want,something i do not wish for a l=
anguage that is slowly becoming a part of myself.<br><br>qunnoQ HoD<br><br><=
br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Th=
u, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:27 PM, SuStel <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:s=
ustel@trimboli.name" target=3D"_blank">sustel@trimboli.name</a>></span> w=
rote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border=
-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On 10/29/2015 2:16 A=
M, Tim Stoffel wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px=
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Considering what the Klingon language community has accomplished over<br>
the years, it would be a shame to think that the end of Marc Okrand<br>
(which I hope is no time soon!) could be the end of the Klingon<br>
language.<br>
<br>
We need a mechanism to keep the language alive.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
Such a mechanism can be dreamed up at such time as Okrand leaves us or decid=
es not to do Klingon anymore. Why try to impose it now? The language won't s=
uddenly evaporate when he's gone.<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#8888=
88"><br>
<br>
-- <br>
SuStel<br>
<a href=3D"http://trimboli.name" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http:/=
/trimboli.name</a></font></span><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>=
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tlhingan-hol mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Tlhingan-hol@kli.org" target=3D"_blank">Tlhingan-hol@kli.o=
rg</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol" rel=3D"norefer=
rer" target=3D"_blank">http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol</a>=
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><span>____________________=
___________________________</span><br><span>Tlhingan-hol mailing list</span>=
<br><span><a href=3D"mailto:Tlhingan-hol@kli.org">Tlhingan-hol@kli.org</a></=
span><br><span><a href=3D"http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol"=
>http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol</a></span><br></div></blo=
ckquote></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail-8D6DBA97-1A0B-4558-A2BB-5D9C60746616--
--===============1540259972330982334==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============1540259972330982334==--
