[101971] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] wovmoHbogh jan
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick)
Fri Nov 6 08:35:25 2015
From: Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 23:35:10 +1000
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmNSZdBpfM+2mKHJyor3y3r8cAbZgypNSHo-uuwuvY3N2A@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============7189614422855402375==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_7161c628-4ebb-4830-aa86-4462ccaedf68_"
--_7161c628-4ebb-4830-aa86-4462ccaedf68_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ghItlhpu' ghunchu'wI'=2C jatlh:
> {wovmoHbogh jan} isn't a word. It's a phrase that means exactly what
> the parts mean. There's no reason to give it a special vocabulary
> entry of its own.
jang Quvar=2C jatlh:
> I used to think similarly=2C but after TalkNow I realized that some word
> combinations indeed deserve their own entry:
> There's no reason? {wovmoHbogh jan} is translated as "light" (i.e. a
> device). Now if someone may search for a term "light"=2C he should find t=
hat
> word.
I agree with ghunchu'wI' on that one. Having a single-word translation in E=
nglish does not justify calling a phrase a word *in Klingon*=2C and we need=
to be really careful about what phrases should be considered useful units =
for the purposes of dictionary making. I think {wovmoHbogh jan} for "light"=
deserves its own lexical entry every bit as much as {Ha'DIbaH ghIH tIr ngo=
gh je} does for "hamburger". Which is to say=2C not at all. There have to b=
e borderlines and once you start letting in such semantically transparent p=
hrases=2C how far does one go? Surely {Daghtuj gho=2C tIr chab bIDmey je} i=
s a reasonable translation of "hamburger" too. Does that deserve a lexical =
entry too?
taH:
> Even if you decide {wovmoHbogh jan} should be omitted in the new words li=
st=2C
> IMO it belongs in every well managed dictionary.
I respectfully disagree on that too. If you're building a canon database=2C=
absolutely=2C but a canon database isn't a dictionary. And if you're looki=
ng to maintain a thoroughly comprehensive dictionary along similar lines to=
the OED=2C sure=2C it's a good idea to use it as an example phrase or a co=
mpound=2C listed in a subsection under the verb {wov} or the noun {jan}. An=
d it's a good Klingon translation of the English noun "light=2C lamp". But =
{wovmoHbogh jan} doesn't warrant its own lexical entry in a Klingon-English=
dictionary.
QeS 'utlh
=
--_7161c628-4ebb-4830-aa86-4462ccaedf68_
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' ghunchu'wI'=2C jatlh:<=
br><div>>=3B {wovmoHbogh jan} isn't a word. It's a phrase that means exac=
tly what<br>>=3B the parts mean. There's no reason to give it a special v=
ocabulary<br>>=3B entry of its own.<br><br>jang Quvar=2C jatlh:<br>>=3B=
I used to think similarly=2C but after TalkNow I realized that some word<b=
r>>=3B combinations indeed deserve their own entry:<br>>=3B There's no =
reason? {wovmoHbogh jan} is translated as "light" (i.e. a<br>>=3B device)=
. Now if someone may search for a term "light"=2C he should find that<br>&g=
t=3B word.<br><br>I agree with ghunchu'wI' on that one. Having a single-wor=
d translation in English does not justify calling a phrase a word *in Kling=
on*=2C and we need to be really careful about what phrases should be consid=
ered useful units for the purposes of dictionary making. I think {wovmoHbog=
h jan} for "light" deserves its own lexical entry every bit as much as {Ha'=
DIbaH ghIH tIr ngogh je} does for "hamburger". Which is to say=2C not at al=
l. There have to be borderlines and once you start letting in such semantic=
ally transparent phrases=2C how far does one go? Surely {Daghtuj gho=2C tIr=
chab bIDmey je} is a reasonable translation of "hamburger" too. Does that =
deserve a lexical entry too?<br><br>taH:<br>>=3B Even if you decide {wovm=
oHbogh jan} should be omitted in the new words list=2C<br>>=3B IMO it bel=
ongs in every well managed dictionary.<br><br>I respectfully disagree on th=
at too. If you're building a canon database=2C absolutely=2C but a canon da=
tabase isn't a dictionary. And if you're looking to maintain a thoroughly c=
omprehensive dictionary along similar lines to the OED=2C sure=2C it's a go=
od idea to use it as an example phrase or a compound=2C listed in a subsect=
ion under the verb {wov} or the noun {jan}. And it's a good Klingon transla=
tion of the English noun "light=2C lamp". But {wovmoHbogh jan} doesn't warr=
ant its own lexical entry in a Klingon-English dictionary.<br><br>QeS 'utlh=
<br></div> </div></body>
</html>=
--_7161c628-4ebb-4830-aa86-4462ccaedf68_--
--===============7189614422855402375==
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
--===============7189614422855402375==--
