[102005] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] wovmoHbogh jan
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick)
Sat Nov 7 08:21:39 2015
From: Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2015 23:21:22 +1000
In-Reply-To: <CABDLMbWMpsKD1AEMieodrOF5x2GDizMbJMnwwUJK2624F7dXAg@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============1709980029694883936==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_8ad53183-f3d6-4783-be94-b3c64cce75ac_"
--_8ad53183-f3d6-4783-be94-b3c64cce75ac_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
mujangpu' Andr=E9=2C jatlh:
> I=2C in turn=2C tend to disagree with QeS 'utlh on this one.
That surprises me=2C because upon reaching your conclusion=2C I find that y=
ou've basically laid out a position that agrees entirely with mine. You sai=
d=2C and I quote: "A really good printed dictionary would list {wovmoHbogh =
jan} as a =0A=
translation for 'light' and perhaps 'lamp' in its English-Klingon part=2C =
=0A=
but might not list it as a lemma in the Klingon-English part. The entry =0A=
would be found as a sub-entry or perhaps example phrase under {wov} (or =0A=
{wovmoH} maybe) and {jan}."
I'm genuinely confused. Is that not what I was saying? That in making a dic=
tionary=2C it's important to distinguish what constitutes a Klingon lexeme =
on the one hand from what is a Klingon translation or gloss of an English l=
exeme on the other? I have no problem with using {wovmoHbogh jan} as a tran=
slation or gloss of English "light". I quote myself: "...sure=2C it's a goo=
d idea to use [wovmoHbogh jan] as an example phrase or a compound=2C =0A=
listed in a subsection under the verb {wov} or the noun {jan}. And it's a=
=0A=
good Klingon translation of the English noun "light=2C lamp"."
jatlhtaH Andr=E9:
> The dictionaries a Klingon learner/speaker is likely to use is a dictiona=
ry in
> both directions=2C and for us=2C especially English-Klingon seems the mos=
t useful.
> As far as Klingon goes=2C words like {Ha'DIbaH ghIH tIr ngogh je} 'hambur=
ger'=2C
> although just being a descriptive phrase=2C is just as much a collocation=
as is
> {Doq 'ej Qaj wuS rur} 'to be brown' or {tlhIngan Hol} 'Klingon language'=
=2C and
There are many problems with this. Firstly=2C it's kind of disingenuous to =
use the word "collocation" for the first two. Nowhere in canon is {Doq 'ej =
Qaj wuS rur} translated as "to be brown". It's rendered by Marc as "be oran=
ge/red and resemble kradge=0A=
lips" (MSN News 21-02-1998)=2C and is given as an *example*=2C not the prot=
otype=2C of how to talk about an object that is a *specific shade* of brown=
. And as for {Ha'DIbaH ghIH tIr ngogh je}=2C like many other Terran-specifi=
c objects from EuroTalk=2C the Klingon is clearly (to me=2C at any rate) ju=
st a description of an object that's otherwise unfamiliar to the Klingon ey=
e. Secondly=2C if you consider {tlhIngan Hol} a collocation worthy of lexif=
ying=2C expand that view systematically: the collocation {tlhIngan SuvwI'} =
is a far more frequent one in Klingon text than {tlhIngan Hol} is. Why shou=
ld {tlhIngan Hol} be lexicalised but {tlhIngan SuvwI'} not be?
taH:
> what people like me - who're not yet fluent in the language - do=2C when =
writing
> something in Klingon and lacking word=2C is to look it up in the dictiona=
ry. We
> hope to not only find 1:1 expressions (e.g. non-compounds) but also descr=
iptive=20
> phrases that are common or have been used before. If I want to mention a
> hamburger=2C 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 lexic=
alized.
That's begging the question=2C though. What I argue is that the form of {Ha=
'DIbaH ghIH tIr ngogh je} speaks to it being unlikely that this is even an =
"established term" at all=2C and that the same goes for {wovmoHbogh jan}. S=
imilarly=2C we know that "car" may be rendered with {puH Duj}=2C but the us=
age of the transparent phrase {puH Duj} in a canon source doesn't for a mom=
ent make me think "well=2C this is the only phrase in canon=2C so I'd best =
use it=2C because the phrases {yav Duj} and {ghor Duj} that others devised =
previously are now less valuable or meaningful".
taH:> For my own dictionary I try to include all kinds of words and transla=
tions=2C
> 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=2C because it's not really a fixed
> term.
Nor is {wovmoHbogh jan}: we already know from canon that this device can al=
ternately be called {wovmoHwI'}.
(poD vay')
taH:
> But I'd add {ngogh mutlhwI'} 'bricklayer'=2C because I might someday want
> to look for this word in the English-Klingon part and rather have an alre=
ady
> set phrase instead of coming up with something on my own.
And that's just fine (not only because {ngogh mutlhwI'} isn't quite transpa=
rent on its own in terms of its sense). I'm not talking about the English-K=
lingon part of a dictionary=2C only about what is worthwhile considering as=
a lemma in the Klingon-English part.
taH:
> The new word list has a slightly different purpose. I'd say it's useful t=
o also
> add {wovmoHbogh jan} 'light' to it=2C simply because in English we happen=
to
> use one word for it.
I thought the purpose of the New Words List was so that Klingon learners=2C=
upon reading an unfamiliar word in a Klingon text=2C would be able to find=
its meaning? Isn't the Klingon-English aspect of the New Words List the mo=
st crucial one?
Long story short=2C what one does with one's own dictionary is one's own bu=
siness=2C and that's fine. I suppose what I'm arguing here that=2C as a tra=
nsparent phrase rather than a word=2C {wovmoHbogh jan} doesn't need to belo=
ng in=2C as Quvar put it=2C "every well-managed dictionary". We need to be =
careful about what we term a "word" in Klingon language study (and I know=
=2C I've been on this soapbox before=3B I apologise for sounding like a {'I=
'SeghIm}=2C that's not my intention at all).
QeS 'utlh
=
--_8ad53183-f3d6-4783-be94-b3c64cce75ac_
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'>mujangpu' Andr=E9=2C jatlh:<br>&=
gt=3B I=2C in turn=2C tend to disagree with QeS 'utlh on this one.<br><br>T=
hat surprises me=2C because upon reaching your conclusion=2C I find that yo=
u've basically laid out a position that agrees entirely with mine. You said=
=2C and I quote: "A really good printed dictionary would list {wovmoHbogh j=
an} as a =0A=
translation for 'light' and perhaps 'lamp' in its English-Klingon part=2C =
=0A=
but might not list it as a lemma in the Klingon-English part. The entry =0A=
would be found as a sub-entry or perhaps example phrase under {wov} (or =0A=
{wovmoH} maybe) and {jan}."<br><br>I'm genuinely confused. Is that not what=
I was saying? That in making a dictionary=2C it's important to distinguish=
what constitutes a Klingon lexeme on the one hand from what is a Klingon t=
ranslation or gloss of an English lexeme on the other? I have no problem wi=
th using {wovmoHbogh jan} as a translation or gloss of English "light". I q=
uote myself: "...sure=2C it's a good idea to use [wovmoHbogh jan] as an exa=
mple phrase or a compound=2C =0A=
listed in a subsection under the verb {wov} or the noun {jan}. And it's a=
=0A=
good Klingon translation of the English noun "light=2C lamp"."<br><br><div=
><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>jatlhtaH Andr=E9:=
<br></div>>=3B The dictionaries a Klingon learner/speaker is likely to us=
e is a dictionary in<br>>=3B both directions=2C and for us=2C especially =
English-Klingon seems the most useful.<br>>=3B As far as Klingon goes=2C =
words like {Ha'DIbaH ghIH tIr ngogh je} 'hamburger'=2C<br>>=3B although j=
ust being a descriptive phrase=2C is just as much a collocation as is<br>&g=
t=3B {Doq 'ej Qaj wuS rur} 'to be brown' or {tlhIngan Hol} 'Klingon languag=
e'=2C and<br><br>There are many problems with this. Firstly=2C it's kind of=
disingenuous to use the word "collocation" for the first two. Nowhere in c=
anon is {Doq 'ej Qaj wuS rur} translated as "to be brown". It's rendered by=
Marc as "be orange/red and resemble kradge=0A=
lips" (MSN News 21-02-1998)=2C and is given as an *example*=2C not the prot=
otype=2C of how to talk about an object that is a *specific shade* of brown=
. And as for {Ha'DIbaH ghIH tIr ngogh je}=2C like many other Terran-specifi=
c objects from EuroTalk=2C the Klingon is clearly (to me=2C at any rate) ju=
st a description of an object that's otherwise unfamiliar to the Klingon ey=
e. Secondly=2C if you consider {tlhIngan Hol} a collocation worthy of lexif=
ying=2C expand that view systematically: the collocation {tlhIngan SuvwI'} =
is a far more frequent one in Klingon text than {tlhIngan Hol} is. Why shou=
ld {tlhIngan Hol} be lexicalised but {tlhIngan SuvwI'} not be?<br><br>taH:<=
br>>=3B what people like me - who're not yet fluent in the language - do=
=2C when writing<br>>=3B something in Klingon and lacking word=2C is to l=
ook it up in the dictionary. We<br>>=3B hope to not only find 1:1 express=
ions (e.g. non-compounds) but also descriptive <br>>=3B phrases that are =
common or have been used before. If I want to mention a<br>>=3B hamburger=
=2C I'd prefer to use an already established term for it rather than<br>>=
=3B making up my own. The same is true for 'lamp'. I see these words as lex=
icalized.<br><br>That's begging the question=2C though. What I argue is tha=
t the form of {Ha'DIbaH ghIH tIr ngogh je} speaks to it being unlikely that=
this is even an "established term" at all=2C and that the same goes for {w=
ovmoHbogh jan}. Similarly=2C we know that "car" may be rendered with {puH D=
uj}=2C but the usage of the transparent phrase {puH Duj} in a canon source =
doesn't for a moment make me think "well=2C this is the only phrase in cano=
n=2C so I'd best use it=2C because the phrases {yav Duj} and {ghor Duj} tha=
t others devised previously are now less valuable or meaningful".<br><br>ta=
H:</div></div>>=3B For my own dictionary I try to include all kinds of wo=
rds and translations=2C<br>>=3B marking non-canonical translations with a=
n asterisk. When I enter a new<br>>=3B word I carefully think about what =
I might look for in the English-Klingon<br>>=3B part. I would not enter s=
omething like {paq QaQ} 'good book' anywhere if<br>>=3B Marc Okrand uses =
that word anywhere=2C because it's not really a fixed<br>>=3B term.<br><b=
r>Nor is {wovmoHbogh jan}: we already know from canon that this device can =
alternately be called {wovmoHwI'}.<br><br>(poD vay')<br><br>taH:<br>>=3B =
But I'd add {ngogh mutlhwI'} 'bricklayer'=2C because I might someday want<b=
r>>=3B to look for this word in the English-Klingon part and rather have =
an already<br>>=3B set phrase instead of coming up with something on my o=
wn.<br><br>And that's just fine (not only because {ngogh mutlhwI'} isn't qu=
ite transparent on its own in terms of its sense). I'm not talking about th=
e English-Klingon part of a dictionary=2C only about what is worthwhile con=
sidering as a lemma in the Klingon-English part.<br></div><br>taH:<br></div=
>>=3B The new word list has a slightly different purpose. I'd say it's us=
eful to also<br>>=3B add {wovmoHbogh jan} 'light' to it=2C simply because=
in English we happen to<br>>=3B use one word for it.<br><br>I thought th=
e purpose of the New Words List was so that Klingon learners=2C upon readin=
g an unfamiliar word in a Klingon text=2C would be able to find its meaning=
? Isn't the Klingon-English aspect of the New Words List the most crucial o=
ne?<br><br>Long story short=2C what one does with one's own dictionary is o=
ne's own business=2C and that's fine. I suppose what I'm arguing here that=
=2C as a transparent phrase rather than a word=2C {wovmoHbogh jan} doesn't =
need to belong in=2C as Quvar put it=2C "every well-managed dictionary". We=
need to be careful about what we term a "word" in Klingon language study (=
and I know=2C I've been on this soapbox before=3B I apologise for sounding =
like a {'I'SeghIm}=2C that's not my intention at all).<br></div><br></div>Q=
eS 'utlh<br></div></div></div> </div></body>
</html>=
--_8ad53183-f3d6-4783-be94-b3c64cce75ac_--
--===============1709980029694883936==
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
--===============1709980029694883936==--
