[112234] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Expressing exterior
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Thu Mar 14 17:39:12 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 17:39:20 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cK6uhsdT2jP9GYSzd9bBY5L1EoEFVTdn+Zu+QKBX0s+Mw@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============8282478774973604599==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------E51CBA9AA8EFFEEF2BD97CC4"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------E51CBA9AA8EFFEEF2BD97CC4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 3/14/2019 4:42 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
> Unfortunately though, without having the means to express "exterior
> surface", the problem remains.
>
> If we say the tumor protrudes from the bone, then the question is,
> from which surface ?
>
> Most bones have four surfaces;
> ventral/dorsal/medial-inner/lateral-outer. Let alone the fact, that
> the need to specify outer has often to do with the need to say that
> the tumor doesn't break through the surface of the bone facing the
> medullary cavity.
Then you should make your wish-list choices /ventral, dorsal,
medial-inner, and lateral-outer./
It may be telling that you are using specialized jargon to describe
these. We don't have a lot of specialized anatomical words in Klingon --
we do have some -- so without being told how Klingon anatomy describes
these, we can't answer the question of how to say it.
You might argue that you should be able to say /top of the bone, front
of the bone, back of the bone,/ and so on. And you can, in fact, say
these things. But again, we're working with layman's vocabulary, not jargon.
You can proclaim that we don't have a word meaning /outer surface,/ but
you don't know that. You just know that /you/ don't know it.
You can also complain that you don't have a word meaning /outer
surface,/ but what are we supposed to do about it?
> Anyways, I can understand that no constructed language can have words
> for everything. But I can't understand the need to avoid admitting
> that some missing words can be indeed at times necessary.
I don't do that. I'm doing my best to give alternatives and to speculate
on the general case, but all I can do is speculate. There are some who
like to force people to make their questions conform to answers they've
already decided, but not everyone here is doing that.
> As far as the interesting question "how would I describe cancer", the
> answer is simple:
You didn't say /cancer;/ you said /tumor. /There are multiple reasons
for tumors.
I leave you with this question. What is the English singular,
third-person pronoun that refers to a person but doesn't require you to
name that person's sex? Your answer should be an uncontroversial one.
Surely there /has/ to be a word for that, right? Klingon has one:
*ghaH.* Why wouldn't English have such an obviously necessary word?
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------E51CBA9AA8EFFEEF2BD97CC4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<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 3/14/2019 4:42 PM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cK6uhsdT2jP9GYSzd9bBY5L1EoEFVTdn+Zu+QKBX0s+Mw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">Unfortunately though, without having the means to
express "exterior surface", the problem remains.
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">If we say the tumor protrudes from the bone,
then the question is, from which surface ?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cK6uhsdT2jP9GYSzd9bBY5L1EoEFVTdn+Zu+QKBX0s+Mw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Most bones have four surfaces;
ventral/dorsal/medial-inner/lateral-outer. Let alone the fact,
that the need to specify outer has often to do with the need
to say that the tumor doesn't break through the surface of the
bone facing the medullary cavity.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Then you should make your wish-list choices <i>ventral, dorsal,
medial-inner, and lateral-outer.</i></p>
<p>It may be telling that you are using specialized jargon to
describe these. We don't have a lot of specialized anatomical
words in Klingon -- we do have some -- so without being told how
Klingon anatomy describes these, we can't answer the question of
how to say it.<br>
</p>
<p>You might argue that you should be able to say <i>top of the
bone, front of the bone, back of the bone,</i> and so on. And
you can, in fact, say these things. But again, we're working with
layman's vocabulary, not jargon.</p>
<p>You can proclaim that we don't have a word meaning <i>outer
surface,</i> but you don't know that. You just know that <i>you</i>
don't know it.</p>
<p>You can also complain that you don't have a word meaning <i>outer
surface,</i> but what are we supposed to do about it?<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cK6uhsdT2jP9GYSzd9bBY5L1EoEFVTdn+Zu+QKBX0s+Mw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="auto">Anyways, I can understand that no constructed
language can have words for everything. But I can't understand
the need to avoid admitting that some missing words can be
indeed at times necessary.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't do that. I'm doing my best to give alternatives and to
speculate on the general case, but all I can do is speculate.
There are some who like to force people to make their questions
conform to answers they've already decided, but not everyone here
is doing that.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cK6uhsdT2jP9GYSzd9bBY5L1EoEFVTdn+Zu+QKBX0s+Mw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">As far as the interesting question "how would I
describe cancer", the answer is simple:</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>You didn't say <i>cancer;</i> you said <i>tumor. </i>There are
multiple reasons for tumors.<br>
</p>
<p>I leave you with this question. What is the English singular,
third-person pronoun that refers to a person but doesn't require
you to name that person's sex? Your answer should be an
uncontroversial one. Surely there <i>has</i> to be a word for
that, right? Klingon has one: <b>ghaH.</b> Why wouldn't English
have such an obviously necessary word?<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>
--------------E51CBA9AA8EFFEEF2BD97CC4--
--===============8282478774973604599==
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
--===============8282478774973604599==--
