[331] in tlhIngan-Hol
wa'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue May 19 11:29:32 1992
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: Mark E. Shoulson <shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Tue, 19 May 92 09:51:42 -0400
In-Reply-To: "MAPLE::BANG"'s message of 18 May 92 17:12:00 EST <9205182121.AA10
Well, it looks like a small can of worms has been opened up with these
double-negatives, and it's just as well; the problem had to be dealt with
sooner or later.
There is gobs of evidence for double-negatives as negatives in natural
languages, all over the place. Nonetheless, I'm going to stick to my guns
and oppose them as such in Klingon, absent any evidence to the contrary.
See, we have, so far as I can tell, no data to go on for this question.
So all I have are my (admittedly very subjective) opinions, as the rest of
you have yours. I think we all agree that by formal logic (for whatever
good that is), it makes more sense to have double negatives as positives.
Ken Beesley points out, correctly, that formal logic has no consistent
relationship with natural language understanding, and it depends on what is
used: understanding is the "metric for meaning." However, if double-negs
as negs is the usage, the only way to know that is... well, just to know
it. You simply must know that idiomatic usage in the language. If
double-negs are positives, then at least you have formal logic as a means
of guesswork to guess at it.
I repeat, all this is entirely my feelings. Given my choice, I would
rather see Klingon using double-negs as postives. This is all more or less
moot without an informant; maybe this should go on the list (there is one,
right?) of things to ask Okrand. There seem to be some opinions opposite
mine here on the list, and that's as it should be.
~mark
