[102480] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] nuqDaq ghaH 'arHa'e'?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (qurgh lungqIj)
Sat Nov 21 09:44:00 2015
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmNuo6U+QQS00ZKYsSuRwLL_-LsuJqo9gj0Yjn2fpq0Fuw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 09:43:42 -0500
From: qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net>
To: "De'vID jonpIn" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
Cc: "tlhIngan-Hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============4900312875812444083==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e014940e6bb3ba205250e048c
--089e014940e6bb3ba205250e048c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
"To be mixed-up" in English, when applied to a person, means "to be
perplexed". The confusion seems to be coming from a limitation applied to
"mixed-up" that doesn't exist. "While walking the maze, he got mixed-up",
"She was mixed-up by the signs at the airport and ended up at the wrong
terminal."
"To mix-up" cards is an idiom meaning "to shuffle" them. Things don't
actually get mixed-up (unless you are making a cake and then combine would
be better), people get them mixed-up. People become confused and make the
wrong choices based on incorrect data. That's being mixed-up.
qurgh
On Nov 21, 2015 4:24 AM, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
> > Your reference to an earlier discussion points to a single message by
> you, which hardly seems conclusive to anyone but perhaps you.
>
> I linked to the first message that started the discussion, because
> that's the only way to link to a thread in the KLI mailing list.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the summary of the counterargument seems
> to be, "that's how the core members of the KLI have always interpreted
> it." And that's my point: what KLI members consider good Klingon isn't
> restricted to canon, it also consists of interpretations that they've
> layered on top of it.
>
> The best way to see that the KLI's interpretations aren't necessarily
> obvious or universal is to spend some time around beginners whose
> first language isn't American English (like at the qepHom in Germany).
> There are a number of words whose English definitions are ambiguous,
> which have been consistently interpreted in one way on the KLI mailing
> list (dominated by American English speakers), but which beginners
> whose first language isn't English and have to consult an English
> dictionary don't interpret in the same way. {mIS} is just the most
> obvious example.
>
> In fact, it's such an obvious and self-referential example that I
> can't believe it's not a deliberate joke, like the listing of
> {bachHa'} as a noun. Most English-to-other-language dictionaries have
> two (or more) entries for "be confused". When an English word has
> multiple unrelated meanings, Okrand has disambiguated them in TKD by a
> second definition which narrowed the sense of the first (e.g., "lie,
> fib" vs. "lie, recline"). Thus, one would expect to see the following
> entries:
>
> {mIS} v. be confused, mixed up
> {missing verb} v. be confused, perplexed
>
> I believe that Okrand couldn't pass up an opportunity to make a clever
> joke and left out the "be confused, perplexed" entry on purpose. If
> {mIS} meant what you think it meant, there would have been no reason
> for it to be glossed as "mixed up", which can only serve to
> disambiguate it from the other sense of "be confused". He could've
> left the definition as "be confused" without a disambiguating second
> definition, in which case most people would've interpreted it in the
> sense of mental perplexity (because that's the more common meaning of
> "be confused" in English), which makes me believe that he added "mixed
> up" on purpose.
>
> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
> > The form of the gloss, "be confused" suggests that it is likely a verb
> that can be adjectival, like "be big" or "be red, orange". These words
> generally don't take direct objects. You can't "be red" something.
>
> Where has anyone suggested otherwise? I agree it's an adjective. That
> it describes a property of the subject is exactly my point.
>
> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
> > The twins in your example might be often confused (for each other by
> someone else) but that confusion requires a third party as the agent of the
> confusion. The twins aren't actually doing anything. You are using the
> passive voice to hide the subject. No subject similarly be red something.
> But someone else must be in a state of confusion over the identity of the
> twins.
>
> If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it
> still make a sound? Yes, actually, it does. Something can actually be
> {chuS} without anyone around to hear it. {'echletHommey mIS} makes
> perfect sense to describe a mixed-up (physically confused) deck of
> cards regardless of whether anyone's around to be (mentally) confused
> by them. The fact that someone must be bored in order for something to
> be boring doesn't mean that {Dal} has a hidden subject, and the fact
> that something can be essential only with respect to something else
> doesn't mean that {'ut} has a hidden subject. Like {ghIH} "be messy",
> {mIS} "be confused, mixed up" is a property of the subject of the
> verb, in languages where such a verb (or adjective) exists.
>
> This is much more clear to speakers of languages in which "be
> confused, mixed up" (physically) is a completely different and
> unrelated word to "be confused, mentally perplexed". The fact that
> other languages have separate words for these concepts doesn't mean
> that Klingon does too, but the two meanings of "be confused" are not
> as tightly or obviously related as you seem to think. It would be an
> unfortunate coincidence if it just happened to be the case that
> Klingon works exactly like American English.
>
> I recognise that most KLI mailing list members consider {mIS} to mean
> "be confused, mentally perplexed" by what ghuchu'wI' called "twenty
> years of consistent usage" in the thread that I linked. I just think
> that those people who have assumed that's what it means have missed a
> joke that's obvious to people who speak languages where the two senses
> of "be confused" map to different words, and have "confused" two
> definitions of the word in a way that underlies the joke (and they are
> "confused"). A literal reading of the definition doesn't imply mental
> confusion. That's an extension of the given meaning. Perhaps Klingons
> have the same idiom in this instance as American English speakers, but
> that's "not canon".
>
> And that's my point. The KLI mailing list has developed some
> conventions which are, strictly speaking, not canon. There are
> ambiguities in the canon, and the KLI mailing list has developed
> conventions which are a matter of historical accident. It's not as
> clear cut as qunnoQ HoD described.
>
> --
> De'vID
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
--089e014940e6bb3ba205250e048c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr">"To be mixed-up" in English, when applied to a per=
son, means "to be perplexed". The confusion seems to be coming fr=
om a limitation applied to "mixed-up" that doesn't exist. &qu=
ot;While walking the maze, he got mixed-up", "She was mixed-up by=
the signs at the airport and ended up at the wrong terminal."</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">"To mix-up" cards is an idiom meaning "to shu=
ffle" them. Things don't actually get mixed-up (unless you are mak=
ing a cake and then combine would be better), people get them mixed-up. Peo=
ple become confused and make the wrong choices based on incorrect data. Tha=
t's being mixed-up.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">qurgh</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Nov 21, 2015 4:24 AM, "De'vID" =
<<a href=3D"mailto:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com">de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com</a>&=
gt; 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">lojmIt t=
I'wI' nuv:<br>
> Your reference to an earlier discussion points to a single message by =
you, which hardly seems conclusive to anyone but perhaps you.<br>
<br>
I linked to the first message that started the discussion, because<br>
that's the only way to link to a thread in the KLI mailing list.<br>
<br>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the summary of the counterargument seems<b=
r>
to be, "that's how the core members of the KLI have always interpr=
eted<br>
it." And that's my point: what KLI members consider good Klingon i=
sn't<br>
restricted to canon, it also consists of interpretations that they've<b=
r>
layered on top of it.<br>
<br>
The best way to see that the KLI's interpretations aren't necessari=
ly<br>
obvious or universal is to spend some time around beginners whose<br>
first language isn't American English (like at the qepHom in Germany).<=
br>
There are a number of words whose English definitions are ambiguous,<br>
which have been consistently interpreted in one way on the KLI mailing<br>
list (dominated by American English speakers), but which beginners<br>
whose first language isn't English and have to consult an English<br>
dictionary don't interpret in the same way. {mIS} is just the most<br>
obvious example.<br>
<br>
In fact, it's such an obvious and self-referential example that I<br>
can't believe it's not a deliberate joke, like the listing of<br>
{bachHa'} as a noun. Most English-to-other-language dictionaries have<b=
r>
two (or more) entries for "be confused". When an English word has=
<br>
multiple unrelated meanings, Okrand has disambiguated them in TKD by a<br>
second definition which narrowed the sense of the first (e.g., "lie,<b=
r>
fib" vs. "lie, recline"). Thus, one would expect to see the =
following<br>
entries:<br>
<br>
{mIS} v. be confused, mixed up<br>
{missing verb} v. be confused, perplexed<br>
<br>
I believe that Okrand couldn't pass up an opportunity to make a clever<=
br>
joke and left out the "be confused, perplexed" entry on purpose. =
If<br>
{mIS} meant what you think it meant, there would have been no reason<br>
for it to be glossed as "mixed up", which can only serve to<br>
disambiguate it from the other sense of "be confused". He could&#=
39;ve<br>
left the definition as "be confused" without a disambiguating sec=
ond<br>
definition, in which case most people would've interpreted it in the<br=
>
sense of mental perplexity (because that's the more common meaning of<b=
r>
"be confused" in English), which makes me believe that he added &=
quot;mixed<br>
up" on purpose.<br>
<br>
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:<br>
> The form of the gloss, "be confused" suggests that it is lik=
ely a verb that can be adjectival, like "be big" or "be red,=
orange". These words generally don't take direct objects. You can=
't "be red" something.<br>
<br>
Where has anyone suggested otherwise? I agree it's an adjective. That<b=
r>
it describes a property of the subject is exactly my point.<br>
<br>
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:<br>
> The twins in your example might be often confused (for each other by s=
omeone else) but that confusion requires a third party as the agent of the =
confusion. The twins aren't actually doing anything. You are using the =
passive voice to hide the subject. No subject similarly be red something. B=
ut someone else must be in a state of confusion over the identity of the tw=
ins.<br>
<br>
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it<br>
still make a sound? Yes, actually, it does. Something can actually be<br>
{chuS} without anyone around to hear it. {'echletHommey mIS} makes<br>
perfect sense to describe a mixed-up (physically confused) deck of<br>
cards regardless of whether anyone's around to be (mentally) confused<b=
r>
by them. The fact that someone must be bored in order for something to<br>
be boring doesn't mean that {Dal} has a hidden subject, and the fact<br=
>
that something can be essential only with respect to something else<br>
doesn't mean that {'ut} has a hidden subject. Like {ghIH} "be =
messy",<br>
{mIS} "be confused, mixed up" is a property of the subject of the=
<br>
verb, in languages where such a verb (or adjective) exists.<br>
<br>
This is much more clear to speakers of languages in which "be<br>
confused, mixed up" (physically) is a completely different and<br>
unrelated word to "be confused, mentally perplexed". The fact tha=
t<br>
other languages have separate words for these concepts doesn't mean<br>
that Klingon does too, but the two meanings of "be confused" are =
not<br>
as tightly or obviously related as you seem to think. It would be an<br>
unfortunate coincidence if it just happened to be the case that<br>
Klingon works exactly like American English.<br>
<br>
I recognise that most KLI mailing list members consider {mIS} to mean<br>
"be confused, mentally perplexed" by what ghuchu'wI' call=
ed "twenty<br>
years of consistent usage" in the thread that I linked. I just think<b=
r>
that those people who have assumed that's what it means have missed a<b=
r>
joke that's obvious to people who speak languages where the two senses<=
br>
of "be confused" map to different words, and have "confused&=
quot; two<br>
definitions of the word in a way that underlies the joke (and they are<br>
"confused"). A literal reading of the definition doesn't impl=
y mental<br>
confusion. That's an extension of the given meaning. Perhaps Klingons<b=
r>
have the same idiom in this instance as American English speakers, but<br>
that's "not canon".<br>
<br>
And that's my point. The KLI mailing list has developed some<br>
conventions which are, strictly speaking, not canon. There are<br>
ambiguities in the canon, and the KLI mailing list has developed<br>
conventions which are a matter of historical accident. It's not as<br>
clear cut as qunnoQ HoD described.<br>
<br>
--<br>
De'vID<br>
<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>
</blockquote></div>
--089e014940e6bb3ba205250e048c--
--===============4900312875812444083==
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
--===============4900312875812444083==--
