[101978] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] wovmoHbogh jan
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIE3DvGxsZXI=?=)
Fri Nov 6 09:31:48 2015
In-Reply-To: <BAY179-W38B043A71AF4C10B6DBBEAAA280@phx.gbl>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 15:31:31 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIE3DvGxsZXI=?= <esperantist@gmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============5984935896840914004==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11401f8a8a76480523e0196f
--001a11401f8a8a76480523e0196f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I, in turn, tend to disagree with QeS 'utlh on this one.
It depends what purpose the dictionary serves. A short Klingon-English
dictionary with just the Klingon lexemes and non-predictable forms would
not include it, and it wouldn't include {tlhIngan Hol} 'Klingon language'
or {Doq 'ej Qaj wuS rur} 'to be brown' either, because their meaning is
just the combination of the meanings of their compounds. Probably not even
{HolQeD} 'linguistics' would need to be included, it being the logical
combination of {Hol} 'language' and {QeD} 'science', cf. German
"Sprachwissenschaft" 'language-science'. For such dictionaries I'd agree,
it might not be useful to include those terms. But who'd use such
dictionaries?
The dictionaries a Klingon learner/speaker is likely to use is a dictionary
in both directions, and for us, especially English-Klingon seems the most
useful. As far as Klingon goes, words like {Ha'DIbaH ghIH tIr ngogh je}
'hamburger', although just being a descriptive phrase, is just as much a
collocation as is {Doq 'ej Qaj wuS rur} 'to be brown' or {tlhIngan Hol}
'Klingon language', and what people like me - who're not yet fluent in the
language - do, when writing something in Klingon and lacking word, is to
look it up in the dictionary. We hope to not only find 1:1 expressions
(e.g. non-compounds) but also descriptive phrases that are common or have
been used before. If I want to mention a hamburger, I'd prefer to use an
already established term for it rather than making up my own. The same is
true for 'lamp'. I see these words as lexicalized.
Good, large dictionaries contain these things as well, although often in
sub-entries. This depends on the dictionary, of course.
For my own dictionary I try to include all kinds of words and translations,
marking non-canonical translations with an asterisk. When I enter a new
word I carefully think about what I might look for in the English-Klingon
part. I would not enter something like {paq QaQ} 'good book' anywhere if
Marc Okrand uses that word anywhere, because it's not really a fixed term.
But I'd add {ngogh mutlhwI'} 'bricklayer', because I might someday want to
look for this word in the English-Klingon part and rather have an already
set phrase instead of coming up with something on my own. What I do (and
many do not), is that I added the word 'mason*' to it, with an asterisk. I
prefer it that way.
My dictionary currently contains 3607 Klingon entries, including such
lexicalized compounds or phrases, and 6004 words in the English part. That
makes it perfect for the purpose I use it for.
The new word list has a slightly different purpose. I'd say it's useful to
also add {wovmoHbogh jan} 'light' to it, simply because in English we
happen to use one word for it. In my dictionary, the translation is 'light;
lamp*' and it has a note that it refers to an illuminating device (so I
won't use it to mean sunlight by accident).
A really good printed dictionary would list {wovmoHbogh jan} as a
translation for 'light' and perhaps 'lamp' in its English-Klingon part, but
might not list it as a lemma in the Klingon-English part. The entry would
be found as a sub-entry or perhaps example phrase under {wov} (or {wovmoH}
maybe) and {jan}.
- Andr=C3=A9
(mu'ghommey boSwI')
2015-11-06 14:35 GMT+01:00 Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>:
> ghItlhpu' ghunchu'wI', 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, jatlh:
> > I used to think similarly, 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", he should find
> that
> > word.
>
> I agree with ghunchu'wI' on that one. Having a single-word translation in
> English does not justify calling a phrase a word *in Klingon*, and we nee=
d
> to be really careful about what phrases should be considered useful units
> for the purposes of dictionary making. I think {wovmoHbogh jan} for "ligh=
t"
> deserves its own lexical entry every bit as much as {Ha'DIbaH ghIH tIr
> ngogh je} does for "hamburger". Which is to say, not at all. There have t=
o
> be borderlines and once you start letting in such semantically transparen=
t
> phrases, how far does one go? Surely {Daghtuj gho, tIr chab bIDmey je} is=
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
> list,
> > IMO it belongs in every well managed dictionary.
>
> I respectfully disagree on that too. If you're building a canon database,
> absolutely, but a canon database isn't a dictionary. And if you're lookin=
g
> to maintain a thoroughly comprehensive dictionary along similar lines to
> the OED, sure, it's a good idea to use it as an example phrase or a
> compound, listed in a subsection under the verb {wov} or the noun {jan}.
> And it's a good Klingon translation of the English noun "light, lamp". Bu=
t
> {wovmoHbogh jan} doesn't warrant its own lexical entry in a Klingon-Engli=
sh
> dictionary.
>
> QeS 'utlh
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>
--001a11401f8a8a76480523e0196f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>I, in turn, tend t=
o disagree with QeS 'utlh on this one.<br><br>It depends what purpose t=
he dictionary serves. A short Klingon-English dictionary with just the Klin=
gon lexemes and non-predictable forms would not include it, and it wouldn&#=
39;t include {tlhIngan Hol} 'Klingon language' or {Doq 'ej Qaj =
wuS rur} 'to be brown' either, because their meaning is just the co=
mbination of the meanings of their compounds. Probably not even {HolQeD} &#=
39;linguistics' would need to be included, it being the logical combina=
tion of {Hol} 'language' and {QeD} 'science', cf. German &q=
uot;Sprachwissenschaft" 'language-science'. For such dictionar=
ies I'd agree, it might not be useful to include those terms. But who&#=
39;d use such dictionaries?<br><br></div>The dictionaries a Klingon learner=
/speaker is likely to use is a dictionary in both directions, and for us, e=
specially English-Klingon seems the most useful. As far as Klingon goes, wo=
rds like {Ha'DIbaH ghIH tIr ngogh je} 'hamburger', although jus=
t being a descriptive phrase, is just as much a collocation as is {Doq '=
;ej Qaj wuS rur} 'to be brown' or {tlhIngan Hol} 'Klingon langu=
age', and what people like me - who're not yet fluent in the langua=
ge - do, when writing something in Klingon and lacking word, is to look it =
up in the dictionary. We hope to not only find 1:1 expressions (e.g. non-co=
mpounds) but also descriptive phrases that are common or have been used bef=
ore. If I want to mention a hamburger, I'd prefer to use an already est=
ablished term for it rather than making up my own. The same is true for =
9;lamp'. I see these words as lexicalized.<br></div>Good, large diction=
aries contain these things as well, although often in sub-entries. This dep=
ends on the dictionary, of course.<br><br></div>For my own dictionary I try=
to include all kinds of words and translations, marking non-canonical tran=
slations with an asterisk. When I enter a new word I carefully think about =
what I might look for in the English-Klingon part. I would not enter someth=
ing like {paq QaQ} 'good book' anywhere if Marc Okrand uses that wo=
rd anywhere, because it's not really a fixed term. But I'd add {ngo=
gh mutlhwI'} 'bricklayer', because I might someday want to look=
for this word in the English-Klingon part and rather have an already set p=
hrase instead of coming up with something on my own. What I do (and many do=
not), is that I added the word 'mason*' to it, with an asterisk. I=
prefer it that way.<br></div>My dictionary currently contains 3607 Klingon=
entries, including such lexicalized compounds or phrases, and 6004 words i=
n the English part. That makes it perfect for the purpose I use it for.<br>=
<br></div>The new word list has a slightly different purpose. I'd say i=
t's useful to also add {wovmoHbogh jan} 'light' to it, simply b=
ecause in English we happen to use one word for it. In my dictionary, the t=
ranslation is 'light; lamp*' and it has a note that it refers to an=
illuminating device (so I won't use it to mean sunlight by accident).<=
br><br></div>A really good printed dictionary would list {wovmoHbogh jan} a=
s a translation for 'light' and perhaps 'lamp' in its Engli=
sh-Klingon part, but might not list it as a lemma in the Klingon-English pa=
rt. The entry would be found as a sub-entry or perhaps example phrase under=
{wov} (or {wovmoH} maybe) and {jan}.<br><br></div>- Andr=C3=A9<br></div>(m=
u'ghommey boSwI')<br><div><div><div>=C2=A0</div></div></div></div><=
div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2015-11-06 14:35 G=
MT+01:00 Rohan Fenwick <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:qeslagh@hotm=
ail.com" target=3D"_blank">qeslagh@hotmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc so=
lid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div dir=3D"ltr">ghItlhpu' ghunchu'wI', jatlh:<br><div>>=
; {wovmoHbogh jan} isn't a word. It's a phrase that means exactly w=
hat<br>> the parts mean. There's no reason to give it a special voca=
bulary<br>> entry of its own.<br><br>jang Quvar, jatlh:<br>> I used t=
o think similarly, but after TalkNow I realized that some word<br>> comb=
inations indeed deserve their own entry:<br>> There's no reason? {wo=
vmoHbogh jan} is translated as "light" (i.e. a<br>> device). N=
ow if someone may search for a term "light", he should find that<=
br>> word.<br><br>I agree with ghunchu'wI' on that one. Having a=
single-word translation in English does not justify calling a phrase a wor=
d *in Klingon*, 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 ngogh je} does for "hamburger&qu=
ot;. Which is to say, not at all. There have to be borderlines and once you=
start letting in such semantically transparent phrases, how far does one g=
o? Surely {Daghtuj gho, tIr chab bIDmey je} is a reasonable translation of =
"hamburger" too. Does that deserve a lexical entry too?<br><br>ta=
H:<br>> Even if you decide {wovmoHbogh jan} should be omitted in the new=
words list,<br>> IMO it belongs in every well managed dictionary.<br><b=
r>I respectfully disagree on that too. If you're building a canon datab=
ase, absolutely, but a canon database isn't a dictionary. And if you=
9;re looking to maintain a thoroughly comprehensive dictionary along simila=
r lines to the OED, sure, it's a good idea to use it as an example phra=
se or a compound, listed in a subsection under the verb {wov} or the noun {=
jan}. And it's a good Klingon translation of the English noun "lig=
ht, lamp". But {wovmoHbogh jan} doesn't warrant its own lexical en=
try in a Klingon-English dictionary.<br><br>QeS 'utlh<br></div> =
</div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Tlhingan-hol mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Tlhingan-hol@kli.org">Tlhingan-hol@kli.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol" rel=3D"norefe=
rrer" target=3D"_blank">http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol</=
a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a11401f8a8a76480523e0196f--
--===============5984935896840914004==
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
--===============5984935896840914004==--
