[101980] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] wovmoHbogh jan
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karen Alessio)
Fri Nov 6 09:37:49 2015
In-Reply-To: <CABDLMbWMpsKD1AEMieodrOF5x2GDizMbJMnwwUJK2624F7dXAg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:37:29 -0500
From: Karen Alessio <karenalessio@gmail.com>
To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>, esperantist@gmail.co
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============2680703949257733974==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11395aaae0a02e0523e02e1d
--001a11395aaae0a02e0523e02e1d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I agree here too. I'm pretty new, and would never have thought to use those
phrases, and may have made up my own incorrect or less-intelligible ones.
On Nov 6, 2015 9:31 AM, "Andr=C3=A9 M=C3=BCller" <esperantist@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
> 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 eve=
n
> {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 see=
ms
> 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. Tha=
t
> 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 t=
o
> 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 'ligh=
t;
> 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, b=
ut
> 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 i=
n
>> English does not justify calling a phrase a word *in Klingon*, and we ne=
ed
>> to be really careful about what phrases should be considered useful unit=
s
>> for the purposes of dictionary making. I think {wovmoHbogh jan} for "lig=
ht"
>> 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 =
to
>> be borderlines and once you start letting in such semantically transpare=
nt
>> phrases, how far does one go? Surely {Daghtuj gho, 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
>> 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 looki=
ng
>> 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". B=
ut
>> {wovmoHbogh jan} doesn't warrant its own lexical entry in a Klingon-Engl=
ish
>> dictionary.
>>
>> QeS 'utlh
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
--001a11395aaae0a02e0523e02e1d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr">I agree here too. I'm pretty new, and would never have t=
hought to use those phrases, and may have made up my own incorrect or less-=
intelligible ones.</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Nov 6, 2015 9:31 AM, "Andr=C3=A9 M=C3=BC=
ller" <<a href=3D"mailto:esperantist@gmail.com">esperantist@gmail.c=
om</a>> wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"=
style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><d=
iv dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>I, in turn, tend to =
disagree with QeS 'utlh on this one.<br><br>It depends what purpose the=
dictionary serves. A short Klingon-English dictionary with just the Klingo=
n lexemes and non-predictable forms would not include it, and it wouldn'=
;t include {tlhIngan Hol} 'Klingon language' or {Doq 'ej Qaj wu=
S rur} 'to be brown' either, because their meaning is just the comb=
ination of the meanings of their compounds. Probably not even {HolQeD} '=
;linguistics' would need to be included, it being the logical combinati=
on of {Hol} 'language' and {QeD} 'science', cf. German &quo=
t;Sprachwissenschaft" 'language-science'. For such dictionarie=
s I'd agree, it might not be useful to include those terms. But who'=
;d use such dictionaries?<br><br></div>The dictionaries a Klingon learner/s=
peaker is likely to use is a dictionary in both directions, and for us, esp=
ecially English-Klingon seems the most useful. As far as Klingon goes, word=
s like {Ha'DIbaH ghIH tIr ngogh je} 'hamburger', although just =
being a descriptive phrase, is just as much a collocation as is {Doq 'e=
j Qaj wuS rur} 'to be brown' or {tlhIngan Hol} 'Klingon languag=
e', 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-comp=
ounds) but also descriptive phrases that are common or have been used befor=
e. If I want to mention a hamburger, I'd prefer to use an already estab=
lished term for it rather than making up my own. The same is true for '=
lamp'. I see these words as lexicalized.<br></div>Good, large dictionar=
ies contain these things as well, although often in sub-entries. This depen=
ds on the dictionary, of course.<br><br></div>For my own dictionary I try t=
o include all kinds of words and translations, marking non-canonical transl=
ations with an asterisk. When I enter a new word I carefully think about wh=
at I might look for in the English-Klingon part. I would not enter somethin=
g 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 f=
or this word in the English-Klingon part and rather have an already set phr=
ase instead of coming up with something on my own. What I do (and many do n=
ot), is that I added the word 'mason*' to it, with an asterisk. I p=
refer it that way.<br></div>My dictionary currently contains 3607 Klingon e=
ntries, including such lexicalized compounds or phrases, and 6004 words in =
the English part. That makes it perfect for the purpose I use it for.<br><b=
r></div>The new word list has a slightly different purpose. I'd say it&=
#39;s useful to also add {wovmoHbogh jan} 'light' to it, simply bec=
ause in English we happen to use one word for it. In my dictionary, the tra=
nslation is 'light; lamp*' and it has a note that it refers to an i=
lluminating device (so I won't use it to mean sunlight by accident).<br=
><br></div>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}.<br><br></div>- Andr=C3=A9<br></div>(mu&=
#39;ghommey boSwI')<br><div><div><div>=C2=A0</div></div></div></div><di=
v class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2015-11-06 14:35 GMT=
+01:00 Rohan Fenwick <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:qeslagh@hotmai=
l.com" target=3D"_blank">qeslagh@hotmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote=
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc soli=
d;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" target=3D"_blank">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>
<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>
--001a11395aaae0a02e0523e02e1d--
--===============2680703949257733974==
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
--===============2680703949257733974==--
