[101641] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Things missing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick)
Thu Oct 29 12:19:19 2015
From: Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 02:18:59 +1000
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cJOcvuhFoVjQHB2C6KQcUcGqB8LQAGi+EEZLWomY5c4xg@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============8340534352647912701==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_0ee9d4cb-d30f-475d-8bbb-c1446034745c_"
--_0ee9d4cb-d30f-475d-8bbb-c1446034745c_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ghItlhpu' qunnoQ=2C jatlh:
> It is not that i'm asking for =0A=
more canon. It is that i want/i demand/
> accept nothing less than Klingon =0A=
to be perfect.
With respect=2C you'll be waiting a very=2C very long time then. There is n=
o such thing as a "perfect" language=2C constructed or otherwise.
taH:
> Yes=2Cnow i'm a beginner. But the time will come=2Cwhen i =0A=
will be able to
> write in Klingon =3B when this language will have been =0A=
made a part of
> myself=2Cthe same way that my heart is a part of my body. =0A=
It will be part
> of my education/skills/abilities and i expect nothing =0A=
less than for it to
> be complete.
Klingon is already as "complete" as a language really gets. It just hasn't =
got as big a lexicon as many other languages=2C but even with the lexicon w=
e already have=2C just because we don't have a Klingon word for "marshmallo=
w" doesn't mean I can't describe a marshmallow in excruciating detail to yo=
u using nothing but Klingon. That's why I feel a little uncertain about you=
r analogy with the posterior cruciate ligament (or as one might say it in K=
lingon=2C {qIv HomDu' nI' rarmeH 'em to'waQ}). Every language leaves out a=
few small organs (words=2C grammatical features...) that it can do most of=
the time without=2C but has to hobble by every once in a while. How obscur=
e does a word have to be to qualify as a real gap worthy of addressing=2C r=
ather than one that we can just leave and work around? Even in English ther=
e are plenty of lexical and grammatical gaps that mean we sometimes have to=
rethink how we're expressing things.
But these differences are fundamentally part of the language learning exper=
ience=2C no matter which language you learn. Discovering that a language yo=
u're learning has no way of distinguishing blue from green=2C or has three =
distinct words for love=2C means that you're conceptualising in a slightly =
different way when you're working within that language's boundaries. I don'=
t know about you=2C but for my part that's one of the things I love about l=
earning languages: it's about seeing that people use different conceptual l=
enses to break up=2C analyse=2C understand=2C and communicate about the wor=
ld. It's unfair in some ways to treat Klingon as though it should be above =
those facts.
taH:
> Why shouldn't i think that all these "acrobatics" wouldn't eventually
> lead to a sentence which's meaning could be interpreted differently
> depending on the interpretation of the individual listener ?
To that I'd respond two things. One is=2C why *should* (as opposed to shoul=
dn't) you think that would be the case=2C any more so than with any other l=
anguage? And the other is=2C all languages are subject to ambiguity and cro=
ssed wires and failures to communicate. I misunderstand people all the frea=
king time even when I'm just speaking with them in my native English.
Spend some time seeing what you can do with=2C in=2C and for this language=
=2C and then make your decision as to whether it's for you or not. I'm not =
as experienced as Qov or ghunchu'wI' or SuStel or lojmIt tI'wI' nuv or many=
of the other Grammarians=2C but with 15 years of Klingon under my own belt=
I can promise you pretty confidently that the kinds of gaps you fear are t=
ruly few and far between. I've only come across maybe a half-dozen concepts=
that I've been utterly stumped to express in all that time - not bad for a=
language such as this. In the meantime=2C you'll have a lot of fun with th=
is language=2C and you'll never meet a more fun=2C intelligent=2C curious=
=2C fascinating=2C and accepting bunch of people.
QeS 'utlh
=
--_0ee9d4cb-d30f-475d-8bbb-c1446034745c_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px=3B
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt=3B
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'><div dir=3D'ltr'>ghItlhpu' qunnoQ=2C jatlh:<br>&g=
t=3B It is not that i'm asking for =0A=
more canon. It is that i want/i demand/<br>>=3B accept nothing less than =
Klingon =0A=
to be perfect.<br><br>With respect=2C you'll be waiting a very=2C very long=
time then. There is no such thing as a "perfect" language=2C constructed o=
r otherwise.<br><br>taH:<br>>=3B Yes=2Cnow i'm a beginner. But the time w=
ill come=2Cwhen i =0A=
will be able to<br>>=3B write in Klingon =3B when this language will have=
been =0A=
made a part of<br>>=3B myself=2Cthe same way that my heart is a part of m=
y body. =0A=
It will be part<br>>=3B of my education/skills/abilities and i expect not=
hing =0A=
less than for it to<br>>=3B be complete.<br><br>Klingon is already as "co=
mplete" as a language really gets. It just hasn't got as big a lexicon as m=
any other languages=2C but even with the lexicon we already have=2C just be=
cause we don't have a Klingon word for "marshmallow" doesn't mean I can't d=
escribe a marshmallow in excruciating detail to you using nothing but Kling=
on. That's why I feel a little uncertain about your analogy with the poster=
ior cruciate ligament (or as one might say it in Klingon=2C {qIv HomDu' nI'=
rarmeH 'em to'waQ}). Every language leaves out a few small organs (words=
=2C grammatical features...) that it can do most of the time without=2C but=
has to hobble by every once in a while. How obscure does a word have to be=
to qualify as a real gap worthy of addressing=2C rather than one that we c=
an just leave and work around? Even in English there are plenty of lexical =
and grammatical gaps that mean we sometimes have to rethink how we're expre=
ssing things.<br><br>But these differences are fundamentally part of the la=
nguage learning experience=2C no matter which language you learn. Discoveri=
ng that a language you're learning has no way of distinguishing blue from g=
reen=2C or has three distinct words for love=2C means that you're conceptua=
lising in a slightly different way when you're working within that language=
's boundaries. I don't know about you=2C but for my part that's one of the =
things I love about learning languages: it's about seeing that people use d=
ifferent conceptual lenses to break up=2C analyse=2C understand=2C and comm=
unicate about the world. It's unfair in some ways to treat Klingon as thoug=
h it should be above those facts.<br><br>taH:<br>>=3B Why shouldn't i thi=
nk that all these "acrobatics" wouldn't eventually<br>>=3B lead to a sent=
ence which's meaning could be interpreted differently<br>>=3B depending o=
n the interpretation of the individual listener ?<br><br>To that I'd respon=
d two things. One is=2C why *should* (as opposed to shouldn't) you think th=
at would be the case=2C any more so than with any other language? And the o=
ther is=2C all languages are subject to ambiguity and crossed wires and fai=
lures to communicate. I misunderstand people all the freaking time even whe=
n I'm just speaking with them in my native English.<br><br>Spend some time =
seeing what you can do with=2C in=2C and for this language=2C and then make=
your decision as to whether it's for you or not. I'm not as experienced as=
Qov or ghunchu'wI' or SuStel or lojmIt tI'wI' nuv or many of the other Gra=
mmarians=2C but with 15 years of Klingon under my own belt I can promise yo=
u pretty confidently that the kinds of gaps you fear are truly few and far =
between. I've only come across maybe a half-dozen concepts that I've been u=
tterly stumped to express in all that time - not bad for a language such as=
this. In the meantime=2C you'll have a lot of fun with this language=2C an=
d you'll never meet a more fun=2C intelligent=2C curious=2C fascinating=2C =
and accepting bunch of people.<br><br>QeS 'utlh<br> </div></body=
>
</html>=
--_0ee9d4cb-d30f-475d-8bbb-c1446034745c_--
--===============8340534352647912701==
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
--===============8340534352647912701==--
