[2675] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: {-ghach}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Thu Jan 20 22:25:24 1994
Errors-To: <angghal@aol.com>
Errors-To: <angghal@aol.com>
Errors-To: <angghal@aol.com>
Errors-To: <angghal@aol.com>
Errors-To: <angghal@aol.com>
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: angghal@aol.com
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 94 19:44:01 EST
Errors-To: <angghal@aol.com>
Errors-To: <angghal@aol.com>
Errors-To: <angghal@aol.com>
Errors-To: <angghal@aol.com>
Reply-To: <angghal@aol.com>
While I understand the point that Guido (leader of all the Guidos) is making,
let me restate it just to be sure I'm not putting words in his mouth. It
seems to also be the one that Glen Proechel is trying to push as well.
Specifically, that if we have a verb (Proechel has gone so far as to limit it
to one syllable verbs) why don't we just assume the nominal form of the verb
is identical. There are certainly plenty of examples of this in the TKD
(finding a dozen or so is left as an exercise for the reader).
The position I believe we need to take is one of extreme conservatism. Yes,
there are plenty of examples. But yes too, there are a number of cases where
the same word means one thing as a noun and something very different as a
verb. While you might take this as evidence that homophones are not a
problem in Klingon (as indeed they obviously aren't) it hardly seems
sufficient license to take that next leap and assume all verbs can be used as
nouns and all nouns as verbs.
Nor is it a question of ambiguity. Given the syntax of a sentence, and
assuming that nouns and/or verbs carry even the occassional suffix, we should
be able to figure out what part of speech a word is. I just feel this is too
sweeping a leap to make, based on too little evidence. Havind some evidence
for a rule is certainly a necessary condition of generating the rule, but it
is not a sufficient one. If you'll pardon a simple-minded analogy, it's akin
to pointing out that (barring immaculate conception and artificial
insemination) while intercourse is a necessary requirement for conception, it
is by no means sufficient.
In his follow up, Nick wondered aloud what effect such differences of opinion
will have on the language as a whole. This to me sounds like the mutterings
of someone trying to foment revolution. The flaw in this thinking is viewing
ourselves as native speakers of the language rather than scholars studying
and working in the language. We are free to differ in our opinions. The
history of this list is full of such debates. Krankor and I spent two weeks
in August almost daily reprising our arguments on one such issue. But I
don't believe it's our place to change the language. That's a far cry from
studying it. That's not what linguists do. We can try to understand it, to
clarify aspects of it, to come to terms with it, but I don't see the language
"splintering." That's not our function, it's not our goal, and it's surely
not our responsibility. I realize it can be difficult to remain objective,
and it's aggravating as hell seeing what the folks at Paramount do, and
likewise it's frustrating knowing that Okrand could resolve much of the
debate if he were so inclined. But that's the reality of it, folks. Talking
about "seizing control" of Klingon is like me saying I'm going to "seize
control" of the weather because I'm tired of the cold front that's caused me
to spend a week's vacation trapped at home (Nick, I envy you being in
Australia at this moment). It's just not rational and it's not going to
happen. On the other hand, while I can't do anything about the weather,
there's nothing saying I can't complain about it. Klingon falls into a
similar category
HItujmoH,
Lawrence
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Dr Lawrence M Schoen, Director ::
:: The Klingon Language Institute ::
:: POB 634, Flourtown, PA 19031 USA ::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
