[91117] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Loose Klingon
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Qov)
Sun Dec 4 11:34:00 2011
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 08:29:57 -0800
To: tlhIngan Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
From: Qov <robyn@flyingstart.ca>
In-Reply-To: <4ED1B867.2050006@trimboli.name>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
This hypothesis makes it easier to write loosely =
but harder to write strictly and harder to read. =
It becomes trapdoor code, a one way passage into =
which meaning can be placed but from which it can =
never be retrieved. The more ways a word can be =
used the harder it is to parse a sentence or to =
write a sentence that cannot be incorrectly =
parsed. I've just about had it with qogh alone: I =
can't write qogh now without specifying either =
nach qogh or yopwaH qogh, and I know to do that =
now, but so many other innocent words I string =
together with one meaning and leave people =
thinking I've said something completely different.
o' tlhingan Hol qaparHa'qu' 'a qamuS.
At 20:11 26/11/2011, David Trimboli wrote:
>More and more, the new canon we see appears to =
>break rules. I believe that some of it is purely =
>error, mostly the forgotten rules of no Type 5s =
>on the first noun of a noun-noun, net instead of =
>'e', and Type 7 on the second verb of a =
>sentence-as-object. However, there are some =
>"rules" that I am beginning to question. Verbs =
>as nouns These keep showing up. "It is not known =
>if all verbs can be used as nouns," says the TKD =
>Addendum, and we know that {tlhutlh} can never =
>be a noun, but what if most verbs can indeed be =
>used as nouns=E2=80=94at least, the ones that seem to =
>have obvious meanings as nouns? Variable =
>semantics The semantic roles of subjects and =
>objects in Klingon seem to change all the time. =
>I can {mev}, I can {mev} you, making you you =
>{mev}. Sometimes we're given explicit =
>instructions on how to use a verb, but most of =
>the time we rely on the semantics of the English =
>translation. Suppose Klingon semantics aren't so =
>strict? Suppose you can use any semantic role =
>you like as subject or object, so long as =
>context makes it clear what you mean? {jIDIng} =
>"I spin," {gho vIDIng} "I spin the circle," {gho =
>vIDIngmoH} "I spin the circle." (The difference =
>between the latter two is an explicit indication =
>({-moH}) that the subject is the agent, as =
>opposed to, say, an instrument or a force. =
>Other? There may be other examples of "loose =
>grammar" that I haven't thought of. I'm not sure =
>whether to take these as signs that Okrand can't =
>keep the whole thing in his head and makes LOTS =
>of mistakes, or whether Klingon is supposed to =
>be more "yeah, whatever" than we give it credit =
>for. Remember the rigor their grammarians give =
>to parts of speech... -- SuStel =
>http://www.trimboli.name/ =
>_______________________________________________ =
>Tlhingan-hol mailing list =
>Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org =
>http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
