[111218] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Marc Okrand talking about DSC (spoilerfree)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Felix Malmenbeck)
Thu Sep 28 04:59:28 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se>
To: "tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org>,
"tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 23:08:16 +0000
In-Reply-To: <8ca12ca2-4ace-88cc-d477-c9d2fdd991a3@trimboli.name>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============4330545721441298402==
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_150655369875627026kthse_"
--_000_150655369875627026kthse_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> What you do is count up exceptional circumstances. If a given piece of ca=
non (1) is a toast,
> which uses special grammar, and (2) violates a clear rule, that's two rea=
sons to be uncertain
> about the correctness of that canon. The more reasons to doubt the gramma=
r of an utterance,
> the less certain you can be of the explanation of that sentence.
I agree with this, although I do think canonical counter-examples are still=
relevant to the discussion.
I also don't don't really think that reason (1) holds up, considering {wo' =
DevtaHjaj ghawran} is explicitly stated not to be a toast, in contrast with=
{wo' ghawran DevtaHjaj}.
It's also worth noting that paq'batlh contains two similar sentences (one o=
f which is repeated three times). I'm generally very suspicious towards paq=
'batlh, in part because it is meant to be an old and poetic text, but mostl=
y because we know it contains a lot of oddities.
The sentences are listed here:
http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/PaqbatlhNewRules#A_2._Verb_45suffix_7_43_jaj
> But we're not talking about Okrandian canon here; we're talking about stu=
ff Qov wrote.
It seems to me the discussion is about the sentence {tlhIngan maH. taHjaj.}=
and how many have interpreted it as *tlhIngan maHtaHjaj.*. In the course o=
f this discussion, the grammaticality of *maHtaHjaj* came up.
Also, considering Qov's command of the language, whether or not a sentence =
is grammatical can be seen as a hint as to whether or not she would have wr=
itten it (although I think the other evidence we have is quite sufficient o=
n its own).
A further piece of evidence that I don't believe has been mentioned here is=
that Kenneth Mitchell (Kol) spelled it that way in a tweet, so that's anot=
her one of Qov's disciples.
https://twitter.com/MrKenMitchell/status/858031343862767617
> But if you always do that, they're not really mu'mey ru'. You're taking t=
he exceptions to the
> language and applying them generally, while telling yourself that you're =
not really doing that.
I don't really think that's true, unless it catches on in a big way and sta=
rts being considered "correct" to some extent, or was treated as an ordinar=
y expression. It seems to match the definition of {mu'mey ru'}:
"Sometimes words or phrases are coined for a specific occasion, intentional=
ly violating grammatical rules in order to have an impact. Usually these ar=
e never heard again, though some gain currency and might as well be classif=
ied as slang. Klingon grammarians call such forms {mu'mey ru'} ("temporary =
words")."
I'll confess that when I first used this construction, I didn't realize tha=
t it was ungrammatical, so that was just a {Qaghna'}. Now I know, however, =
and intend to go on using it :)
________________________________
From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of SuStel=
<sustel@trimboli.name>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 17:10
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Marc Okrand talking about DSC (spoilerfree)
On 9/27/2017 9:25 AM, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:
It's worth noting that so do =ABwo' DevtaHjaj ghawran=BB and =ABwo' ghawran
DevtaHjaj=BB, which are used in KGT to illustrate toast grammar.
As you say, these are exceptions used in toasts, so that doesn't count.
I don't believe the first example is meant to be an exception; according to=
KGT:
"If uttered as a wish, hope, or aspiration - but not as a toast - the norma=
l word order applies: {wo' DevtaHjaj ghawran} ("May Gowron continue to lead=
the empire")."
It might still be an error, though.
What you do is count up exceptional circumstances. If a given piece of cano=
n (1) is a toast, which uses special grammar, and (2) violates a clear rule=
, that's two reasons to be uncertain about the correctness of that canon. T=
he more reasons to doubt the grammar of an utterance, the less certain you =
can be of the explanation of that sentence.
But we're not talking about Okrandian canon here; we're talking about stuff=
Qov wrote. Whether it's filmed or not, it has no more authority than Worf =
belching out ka'blah'blah'cha, until Okrand says Maltz has an opinion on it=
. Naturally, Okrand would look at anything Qov wrote and say, "Oh, sure, th=
at's because..." and give us an explanation. But until he does that, it's n=
ot canonical Klingon.
Personally, I like to use phrases such as {X-ta'jaj X-taHbogh Hoch.} to wis=
h people success. I'm fine with those being {mu'mey ru'}, though.
But if you always do that, they're not really mu'mey ru'. You're taking the=
exceptions to the language and applying them generally, while telling your=
self that you're not really doing that.
It would be kind of like constantly telling people, May you are happy or Ma=
y you are successful. People would get you the first time they heard it, an=
d figured you just flubbed the sentence in the moment, but if you kept sayi=
ng that, they'd start to look at you funny. Someone would ask, "Why do you =
say are instead of be?" Now, violating the Klingon rule gives you a more ve=
rsatile sentence than violating my English examples, and that's why you'd d=
o it, but the effect on the listener would be similar.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--_000_150655369875627026kthse_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-=
1">
<style type=3D"text/css" style=3D"display:none"><!--P{margin-top:0;margin-b=
ottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"font-size:12pt;color:#000000;background-color:#F=
FFFFF;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<p>> <span style=3D"background-color:white;">What you do is count up exc=
eptional circumstances. If a given piece of canon (1) is a toast,<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style=3D"background-color:white;">> which uses special grammar,=
and (2) violates a clear rule, that's two reasons to be uncertain<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style=3D"background-color:white;">> about the correctness of th=
at canon. The more reasons to doubt the grammar of an utterance,<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style=3D"background-color:white;">> the less certain you can be=
of the explanation of that sentence.<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style=3D"background-color:white;"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style=3D"background-color:white;">I agree with this, although I do=
think canonical counter-examples are still relevant to the discussion.<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style=3D"background-color:white;">I also don't don't really think =
that reason (1) holds up, considering {wo' DevtaHjaj ghawran} is explicitly=
stated not to be a toast, in contrast with {wo' ghawran DevtaHjaj}.<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style=3D"background-color:white;"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style=3D"background-color:white;">It's also worth noting that paq'=
batlh contains two similar sentences (one of which is repeated three times)=
. I'm generally very suspicious towards paq'batlh, in part because it is me=
ant to be an old and poetic text,
but mostly because we know it contains a lot of oddities.<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style=3D"background-color:white;"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style=3D"background-color:white;">The sentences are listed here: <=
/span></p>
<p><span style=3D"background-color:white;"><a href=3D"http://www.klingonwik=
i.net/En/PaqbatlhNewRules#A_2._Verb_45suffix_7_43_jaj">http://www.klingonwi=
ki.net/En/PaqbatlhNewRules#A_2._Verb_45suffix_7_43_jaj</a><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style=3D"background-color:white;"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style=3D"background-color:white;">> But we're not talking about=
Okrandian canon here; we're talking about stuff Qov wrote.<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style=3D"background-color:white;"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style=3D"background-color:white;">It seems to me the discussion is=
about the sentence {tlhIngan maH. taHjaj.} and how many have interpreted i=
t as *tlhIngan maHtaHjaj.*. In the course of this discussion, the grammatic=
ality of *maHtaHjaj* came up.<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style=3D"background-color:white;"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style=3D"background-color:white;">Also, considering Qov's command =
of the language, whether or not a sentence is grammatical can be seen as a =
hint as to whether or not she would have written it (although I think the o=
ther evidence we have is quite sufficient
on its own).<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style=3D"background-color:white;"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style=3D"background-color:white;">A further piece of evidence that=
I don't believe has been mentioned here is that Kenneth Mitchell (Kol) spe=
lled it that way in a tweet, so that's another one of Qov's disciples.<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style=3D"background-color:white;"><a href=3D"https://twitter.com/M=
rKenMitchell/status/858031343862767617">https://twitter.com/MrKenMitchell/s=
tatus/858031343862767617</a><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style=3D"background-color:white;"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style=3D"background-color:white;">> But if you always do that, =
they're not really
<strong>mu'mey ru'.</strong> You're taking the exceptions to the<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style=3D"background-color:white;">> language and applying them =
generally, while telling yourself that you're not really doing that.<br>
<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style=3D"background-color:white;">I don't really think that's true=
, unless it catches on in a big way and starts being considered "corre=
ct" to some extent, or was treated as an ordinary expression. It seems=
to match the definition of {mu'mey ru'}:<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style=3D"background-color:white;"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style=3D"background-color:white;"></span>"Sometimes words or =
phrases are coined for a specific occasion, intentionally violating grammat=
ical rules in order to have an impact. Usually these are never heard again,=
though some gain currency and might as
well be classified as slang. Klingon grammarians call such forms {mu'mey r=
u'} ("temporary words")."</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I'll confess that when I first used this construction, I didn't realize =
that it was ungrammatical, so that was just a {Qaghna'}. Now I know, howeve=
r, and intend to go on using it :)
<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div style=3D"color: rgb(33, 33, 33);">
<hr tabindex=3D"-1" style=3D"display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id=3D"divRplyFwdMsg" dir=3D"ltr"><font style=3D"font-size:11pt" color=
=3D"#000000" face=3D"Calibri, sans-serif"><b>From:</b> tlhIngan-Hol <tlh=
ingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of SuStel <sustel@trimboli=
.name><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 27, 2017 17:10<br>
<b>To:</b> tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Marc Okrand talking about DSC (spoilerfr=
ee)</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">On 9/27/2017 9:25 AM, Felix Malmenbeck wrote=
:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">
<blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"color:#000000">
<blockquote type=3D"cite" style=3D"color:#000000">
<pre>It's worth noting that so do =ABwo' DevtaHjaj ghawran=BB and =ABwo' gh=
awran=0A=
DevtaHjaj=BB, which are used in KGT to illustrate toast grammar.=0A=
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>As you say, these are exceptions used in toasts, so that doesn't count=
.=0A=
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>I don't believe the first example is meant to be an exception; accordi=
ng to KGT:=0A=
"If uttered as a wish, hope, or aspiration - but not as a toast - the =
normal word order applies: {wo' DevtaHjaj ghawran} ("May Gowron contin=
ue to lead the empire")."=0A=
=0A=
It might still be an error, though.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>What you do is count up exceptional circumstances. If a given piece of c=
anon (1) is a toast, which uses special grammar, and (2) violates a clear r=
ule, that's two reasons to be uncertain about the correctness of that canon=
. The more reasons to doubt the
grammar of an utterance, the less certain you can be of the explanation of=
that sentence.<br>
</p>
<p>But we're not talking about Okrandian canon here; we're talking about st=
uff Qov wrote. Whether it's filmed or not, it has no more authority than Wo=
rf belching out
<i>ka'blah'blah'cha,</i> until Okrand says Maltz has an opinion on it. Natu=
rally, Okrand would look at anything Qov wrote and say, "Oh, sure, tha=
t's because..." and give us an explanation. But until he does that, it=
's not canonical Klingon.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">
<pre>Personally, I like to use phrases such as {X-ta'jaj X-taHbogh Hoch.} t=
o wish people success. I'm fine with those being {mu'mey ru'}, though.=0A=
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>But if you always do that, they're not really <b>mu'mey ru'.</b> You're =
taking the exceptions to the language and applying them generally, while te=
lling yourself that you're not really doing that.<br>
</p>
<p>It would be kind of like constantly telling people, <i>May you are happy=
</i> or
<i>May you are successful.</i> People would get you the first time they hea=
rd it, and figured you just flubbed the sentence in the moment, but if you =
kept saying that, they'd start to look at you funny. Someone would ask, &qu=
ot;Why do you say
<i>are </i>instead of <i>be</i>?" Now, violating the Klingon rule give=
s you a more versatile sentence than violating my English examples, and tha=
t's why you'd do it, but the effect on the listener would be similar.<br>
</p>
<pre class=3D"moz-signature" cols=3D"72">-- =0A=
SuStel=0A=
<a class=3D"moz-txt-link-freetext" href=3D"http://trimboli.name">http://tri=
mboli.name</a></pre>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
--_000_150655369875627026kthse_--
--===============4330545721441298402==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============4330545721441298402==--
