[89122] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: mu'mey chu': matlh vItlho'qu'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robyn Stewart)
Sun Aug 21 12:34:33 2011
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 09:19:38 -0700
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
From: Robyn Stewart <robyn@flyingstart.ca>
In-Reply-To: <A1D58F32-762C-4FA7-97B3-618051ADB0FF@gmail.com>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Thank you for recognizing MO and not the qep'a' attendees as the
source of the chaos. I was feeling a little bit attacked before, when
all I was trying to do was convey what we had learned.
I think the situation is not as bad as you fear, that with time we
can get a useable English definition out of him for each word. I know
he appreciates organization because I was there when you showed him
your list and saw how eagerly he accepted your offer to send him a
copy. Also this year I was using the Klingonska Akademien dictionary
(yeah, sometimes the memory does need a back-up) and when I termed it
lI'qu' Mark agreed heartily.
Do'Ha' Hol San DaDelbogh vIpIH je. 'a chaq maghoHmo' nIteb mu'Hommey
QavDIch jatlh 'op.
- Qov
At 08:18 21/08/2011, you wrote:
>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'
> >
> >
> >
