[89121] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: mu'mey chu': matlh vItlho'qu'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmIt tI'wI' nuv)
Sun Aug 21 11:21:37 2011
From: "lojmIt tI'wI' nuv" <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFK8js1kv1=xG-u7HMzHiFmjYQVYXmRq0Bg990Kd=NndFotQQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 11:18:08 -0400
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
The problem with the way that Marc Okrand wants to present words (and has always consistently wanted to present words) is that for myself as a lexicographer, seeking to make a useful dictionary, the metadata needs a level of consistency so that we can understand each word and it's usefulness with a consistent degree of accuracy.
But he wants to mimic natural languages, presenting words in context without further explanation, or keeping the Maltz legend alive with vague glosses, and generally not providing any consistency in the manner by which words are introduced.
Short of producing something as verbose as the Oxford English Dictionary, siting every canon entry, without the authority of the authors of the OED to provide an accompanying definition, it gets harder and harder to maintain a useful dictionary, especially one that works in both directions. The English-to-Klingon side becomes uselessly full of false positive hits because of all the words in the explanations of context.
A small expansion of the lexicon thereby corrupts the usefulness of the the dictionary as a whole. Forgive me my venting of frustration. If we had more canon, we could be more like the OED. But we don't. If we had simple, consistent, explicit definitions, the dictionary could have a style more like your average bilingual dictionary. But we don't. If anybody except the one man who refuses to provide definitions of a consistent quality had the authority to come up with consistent definitions we could cover the gap, but we don't.
As the game becomes more rewarding, the dictionary becomes more useless. You had to be there to understand a specific word, and different people come away remembering the specifics of the meaning differently. Chaos tears at the edges of any form of organization that the dictionary might take.
And over the years, new people arrive who weren't there for the special game sessions that have become increasingly exclusive in doling out rewards. The new people won't have any of the memories of these gaming sessions to fall back on. They can only work with the summarizing tools that we leave for them, like the New Words List. Whoever takes on the New Words List has his work cut out for him, if it isn't going to devolve into a useless mess.
When I first met Okrand, he saw my dictionary and asked for a copy. It was a simple Word document then (and has been resorted through several different databases over the years). He was amazed that all his words were collected in one place with the sources noted, along with discrepancies pointed out in the presentation of specific words from different sources. He didn't have anything like that back home.
That dictionary was imperfect, but the approach that went into it was wholly new to him. He just had words scribbled on pieces of paper, scattered about. I get the sense that his approach to the vocabulary hasn't changed very much. His method not only lacks organization. It lacks any value for organization. It wouldn't know what to do with organization.
Chaos doesn't bother him. He rarely has to actually use the language. He can just make up a new word when he wants one. If he forgets an old word and makes up a new one, no problem. Natural languages have synonyms.
The rest of us have to find the right word to express something we want to say, right now. The key to finding that right word is organization. Some of us are brilliant enough to memorize all the words and allow raw brain power to do the organizing to find that right word. The rest of us need external tools to make the heuristics possible.
I've put more work than most into building and maintaining such a tool. The New Words List is one public instance of that effort, so that people can find the words without needing me to find them for them in my personal collection. Our Canon Master has not provided a similarly public tool, so he provides an ongoing service, instead. Of course, if he leaves, that resource disappears with him.
I left, as lexicographer, yet people got along fine without me. New people could use what I left behind, and with a little catchup work, have the resources to make a usefully full vocabulary. If we want new community members, we need to provide and maintain this kind of tool.
I wish Okrand didn't make this task so hard. Yes, the game is fun. And the language likely won't survive it's players, if this is how it will always be played.
The language first breathed life in Qanqor, who spoke it before he had anyone else to talk to. Likely it will end with one of our younger members similarly talking to himself as he slides through delirium towards the last Klingon syllable.
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 20, 2011, at 11:34 AM, "ghunchu'wI' 'utlh" <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 5:42 AM, lojmIt tI'wI' nuv <
> lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Okrand isn't just a person. He's the root authority of the language. As
>> someone communicating with him, you are not just a person. You are
>> representing the general interests of the larger Klingon speaking community.
>> If he gives you a vague idea of what a word means or how a grammar detail
>> works and you just accept it as he initially presents it without exploring
>> the edges of what he's saying and seeking feedback on your interpretation,
>> then the rest of the community never gets the details. We are then all stuck
>> with the vague sense of things that you were satisfied to accept, and we'll
>> argue about it for the next year or longer. And we don't have any feedback
>> loop that includes Okrand to make sure we aren't misinterpreting what he
>> intended to convey.
>
>
> Understand two things about this particular collection of words. First, they
> appeared in the lyrics of an opera. They had a definite context, with a
> parallel English version that naturally wasn't always a word-for-word
> translation. Marc Okrand told us explicitly to rely on that context, and to
> understand the meanings based on their usage. He clearly did not want to
> provide simple or precise definitions, and the only details readily
> available to us were on the pages we were reading.
>
> Second, we were speaking only Klingon at the time. I didn't even notice that
> until we came across the obviously un-simple <ngIq>. I found myself having
> to stop relying on speech only and start using more pantomime and pointing
> to ensure I was getting my intent across while we tried to pin down its
> meaning.
>
> And then, when you present what you've learned, if you allow a sense of,
>> "... and I know more than I'm letting on just now," then you do a great
>> disservice to the rest of the community. What good does it do the language
>> for a few people to know things the rest of us don't have access to?
>
>
> "I know a secret and you don't" applies to the qep'a' attendees as well. Qov
> was just letting you in on the anticipation when she reported the existence
> of words that are said to be in the Klingon vocabulary but for which we
> haven't been told the meaning. There's apparently some sort of large
> multilingual translation project/product that hasn't been released yet. One
> of the people who was part of it (and not at the qep'a') sent Lawrence an
> email birthday message containing and explaining a single novel word. The
> message said two other things: you can confirm this word with Marc Okrand,
> and don't tell anyone else about it. Marc declined to confirm the word (at
> least in public), and didn't disagree when we guessed that there was a
> nondisclosure agreement involved. I don't think anyone managed to hear the
> word when Lawrence tried to pronounce it before he got to the part about
> keeping it quiet.
>
>
>> Then, it's not a language. It's a game, and you just got extra points.
>> Congratulations.
>>
>
> For we who were present, the process of acquiring the new words was indeed a
> game, and I believe everyone playing it won.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
>
>
>
