[112142] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] =?utf-8?b?4oCcV2hhdCBjb2xvciBpcyBpdD/igJ0=?=
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Mon Mar 11 09:34:14 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 09:34:11 -0400
In-Reply-To: <0F2C223C-E1E9-4A2B-8A31-8D8E711EB099@mac.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============6990882783220812699==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------AC8D10AF4145699FA616C39E"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------AC8D10AF4145699FA616C39E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 3/11/2019 8:58 AM, Will Martin wrote:
> Basically, humans don’t develop color words for natural colors. As
> they invent artificial colors, they invent words to describe them.
> Before there was blue paint or dye, the sea was described as the color
> of dark wine and the sky was white. Helen of Troy’s eyes were grey.
>
> Apparently, Klingon kids grow up with two crayons, a dark pencil and a
> white page.
While your history of the invention of the color-word /blue/ is
essentially correct, it does not apply to every language. There are
languages that exist which do not have dedicated words for certain
colors, and yet the native speakers of those languages can make use of
those colors just fine.
English, for instance, has eleven basic color terms, but that doesn't
stop Crayola from producing a box of 120 different crayon colors. We
create compound terms to describe various shades of a basic color. When
your language has fewer basic color terms, you don't see fewer colors;
you just classify them differently. You can recognize all the same
shades of colors; you just need to use more compound terms to zero in on
them. And speakers of languages with fewer color terms have one
advantage: when they don't need to be exact, they don't have to be.
Klingon poets, for instance, can see the sun in the sky and describe a
*jul SuD* in a *chal SuD,* a parallel no English-speaking poet could
make. They recognize that it's a *SuDbogh jul 'ej wovbogh* in a *chal
SuDqu'* (the skies of Kronos are usually depicted as green — and the
fact that I have to clarify this demonstrates my point perfectly), but
they don't need to say all that. They're both*SuD.*
> And since there are so few color words to choose from, why bother with
> a generic word for “color”? Just ask it like the joke: “Doq’a’?”
(A) Because Okrand told us how they do it: *chay' nguv?* (B) Because
sometimes you do care about shades, and *Doq'a'* doesn't allow you to
drill down that far. (C) Because receiving a wink and a joke answer to a
serious question is irritating.
> You don’t have to ask {SuD’a’}. If it’s not {Doq}, it must be {SuD},
> right? And if it’s neither, then it isn’t really a color. It’s just
> dark or light or it looks like something in nature for which there is
> no color word.
*qIj* and *SuD* are color words too. Shades of black and white are
colors. Those four words apparently cover the entire range of the
Klingon visual spectrum, and anything in nature will fall into one of those.
> This might be why the joke is considered funny to Klingons. Klingon
> armor, weapons, and blood are not red, so how could a warrior be red?
> It’s such a silly idea. Mwahahahahahahahahah...
The joke is not asking if warriors are red, but if warriors are *Doq.*
Klingon blood is *Doq,* as are "nearly all Klingon bodily fluids" (KGT).
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------AC8D10AF4145699FA616C39E
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/11/2019 8:58 AM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0F2C223C-E1E9-4A2B-8A31-8D8E711EB099@mac.com">
<div class="">Basically, humans don’t develop color words for
natural colors. As they invent artificial colors, they invent
words to describe them. Before there was blue paint or dye, the
sea was described as the color of dark wine and the sky was
white. Helen of Troy’s eyes were grey.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Apparently, Klingon kids grow up with two crayons, a
dark pencil and a white page. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>While your history of the invention of the color-word <i>blue</i>
is essentially correct, it does not apply to every language. There
are languages that exist which do not have dedicated words for
certain colors, and yet the native speakers of those languages can
make use of those colors just fine.</p>
<p>English, for instance, has eleven basic color terms, but that
doesn't stop Crayola from producing a box of 120 different crayon
colors. We create compound terms to describe various shades of a
basic color. When your language has fewer basic color terms, you
don't see fewer colors; you just classify them differently. You
can recognize all the same shades of colors; you just need to use
more compound terms to zero in on them. And speakers of languages
with fewer color terms have one advantage: when they don't need to
be exact, they don't have to be. Klingon poets, for instance, can
see the sun in the sky and describe a <b>jul SuD</b> in a <b>chal
SuD,</b> a parallel no English-speaking poet could make. They
recognize that it's a <b>SuDbogh jul 'ej wovbogh</b> in a <b>chal
SuDqu'</b> (the skies of Kronos are usually depicted as green —
and the fact that I have to clarify this demonstrates my point
perfectly), but they don't need to say all that. They're both<b>
SuD.</b><br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0F2C223C-E1E9-4A2B-8A31-8D8E711EB099@mac.com">
<div class="">And since there are so few color words to choose
from, why bother with a generic word for “color”? Just ask it
like the joke: “Doq’a’?”</div>
</blockquote>
<p>(A) Because Okrand told us how they do it: <b>chay' nguv?</b>
(B) Because sometimes you do care about shades, and <b>Doq'a'</b>
doesn't allow you to drill down that far. (C) Because receiving a
wink and a joke answer to a serious question is irritating.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0F2C223C-E1E9-4A2B-8A31-8D8E711EB099@mac.com">
<div class="">You don’t have to ask {SuD’a’}. If it’s not {Doq},
it must be {SuD}, right? And if it’s neither, then it isn’t
really a color. It’s just dark or light or it looks like
something in nature for which there is no color word.</div>
</blockquote>
<p><b>qIj</b> and <b>SuD</b> are color words too. Shades of black
and white are colors. Those four words apparently cover the entire
range of the Klingon visual spectrum, and anything in nature will
fall into one of those.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0F2C223C-E1E9-4A2B-8A31-8D8E711EB099@mac.com">
<div class="">This might be why the joke is considered funny to
Klingons. Klingon armor, weapons, and blood are not red, so how
could a warrior be red? It’s such a silly idea.
Mwahahahahahahahahah...</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The joke is not asking if warriors are red, but if warriors are <b>Doq.</b>
Klingon blood is <b>Doq,</b> as are "nearly all Klingon bodily
fluids" (KGT).<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------AC8D10AF4145699FA616C39E--
--===============6990882783220812699==
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
--===============6990882783220812699==--
