[93059] in tlhIngan-Hol
[Tlhingan-hol] Fwd: Question regarding purpose clauses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmIt tI'wI'nuv)
Mon Apr 30 10:56:57 2012
From: lojmIt tI'wI'nuv <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:56:36 -0400
To: tlhIngan-Hol discussion forum <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
--===============9148411774817510167==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CA008ED6-0298-404E-A06A-F626C2B49CAC"
--Apple-Mail=_CA008ED6-0298-404E-A06A-F626C2B49CAC
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Begin forwarded message:
> From: lojmIt tI'wI'nuv <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Question regarding purpose clauses
> Date: April 30, 2012 10:53:54 AM EDT
> To: Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se>
>=20
>=20
> On Apr 30, 2012, at 6:21 AM, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:
>=20
>>> Unfortunately, Okrand has (gasp!) written some pretty ugly canon =
sentences.
>>=20
>> That's certainly true, and it's worth considering under what =
conditions he wrote the various sentences:
>> {[wI]qIpmeH Qatlh'a'} was part of a movie script, so I'm guessing he =
put some amount of thought into it.
>> The interpretation of {qaSuchmeH jIpaSqu'}, however, was part of a =
newsgroup posting, and probably didn't receive as much thought. To add =
to that, it wasn't even his sentence to begin with.
>=20
> Some of the worst canon in existence is in movies because of the =
editing process. valQIS's lines were all shot while she was speaking =
English and then dubbed afterwards and Okrand invented weird grammar to =
keep words coming out of her mouth while her lips were moving, even =
though what she otherwise would have said would have used fewer =
syllables. Then there's the "Target engines only" line that became "I =
wanted prisoners". An outtake of one became the other when the director =
realized he hadn't explained why he wanted the gunner to target engines =
only (actors attempting to say one thing, but not quite well enough to =
keep was given a new subtitle for the other line because the director =
didn't think of adding the other line until the actors were out of =
makeup and the set was broken down). Then there's that completely =
unintelligible emphatic mumble by an officer making some sort of =
empassioned argument while spreading out a map on a table. It seemed to =
be composed mostly of the syllable "wa" said over and over again.
>=20
> And then there's {taH pagh taHbe'}. No thought went into that at all. =
He's on the set with a handful of prepared translated lines from MacBeth =
and other very Klingon-culturally-interesting scenes in Shakespeare, and =
the director turned to him and said, "Gimme 'To be or not to be.'" The =
actors were ready. The cameras were ready. Okrand knew he had a problem =
he didn't have time to solve well, so he improvised.
>=20
> It is challenging to fathom how "we hit it" is the purpose of "it is =
difficult". Unless this is an unexplained idiom, it's a piss poor excuse =
for a sentence conveying meaning. Better would have been {Qatlh'a' =
wIqIpmeH Qu'?}. That would be hard to misinterpret.
>=20
> ... but then people are saying these things, and people say poorly =
expressed things all the time. The characters in question were =
back-woods Klingons with self-esteem issues. There is no indication they =
were particularly well educated or that they spoke particularly standard =
Klingon. They are not Klingon language instructors. They are guys, =
bored, perhaps a little stupid, and aimlessly wandering around space =
looking for trouble. Do you really want to learn to talk like they do?
>=20
>> It's interesting, though, to see the breadth of opinions on this =
topic:
>> I accept those canonical sentences and make certain extrapolations.
>> Most seem to accept those canonical sentences as being good =
sentences, but don't think my extrapolations are correct.
>> You seem to be skeptical towards the sentences, themselves.
>=20
> I probably understand how to say things in Klingon better than Okrand. =
That doesn't mean that I have any intentions of taking his authority =
away from him. He created the language. I have enormous respect for him =
for that. That respect won't stop me from rolling my eyes when I see =
what he does with the language from time to time.
>=20
> The issue at hand is that Okrand has never spoken the language in the =
way that most people here do. It's like he has to go back and learn it =
each time he has to write something. And sometimes, he forgets stuff or =
doesn't think of stuff while he comes up with these canon examples. =
Other times, he decides that humor is more important than consistency or =
than making the language better able to express a wide range of useful =
meanings. He has many motives and each has its turn in affecting the =
language. Making the language a good tool for clearly expressing meaning =
is only one of his motives, and it has to wait its turn in line with his =
other motives.
>=20
>> ...and I really do think there's a case to be made for all three of =
those positions, and probably many more variations thereof, which is why =
I'm glad we're having this discussion.
>>=20
>>> As for "I was going to visit you, but it was late," there are better =
options.
>>> {tlhoy jIpaSmo' qaSuchbe'.} Klingon doesn't have an irrealis or =
subjunctive.
>>> If you mean that something would have happened, except that X =
prevented
>>> it, then you need to say that the thing didn't happen because of X.
>>=20
>> Marc didn't interpret {qaSuchmeH jIpaSqu'} to mean that the meeting =
didn't take place, though, as with {tlhoy jIpaSmo' qaSuchbe'}; he =
interpreted it as "I do visit you, but am very late.", and gave =
alternative translations for the describing a visit that was prevented =
by tardiness.
>=20
> Either I missed something or the more complete transcript was not =
included.
>=20
>>> In general, I think most people write better Klingon sentences if =
they begin with
>>> an expression that they wish to make and then survey the grammatical =
tools
>>> available in the language to find the best construction, instead of =
starting with a
>>> grammatical construction and searching for the full range of =
expressions that can
>>> be forced through it.
>>>=20
>>> There are many posts to this list over the years that ask some =
variation on the
>>> question: "We all agree that we can say X with grammatical tool Y, =
but can we
>>> also say Z with it?" The answer is usually some variation on, "No."
>>=20
>> However, if we are to survey the grammatical tools available to us, =
we must know what those tools are. It seems to me that a natural way to =
find out is that when you find an example in canon, you ask yourself if =
it's a reasonbale construction, then check if there are more examples, =
and then ask your peers their opinions.
>>=20
>=20
> I didn't really expect to dissuade you from doing this. It's a very =
popular approach to the language, especially among linguists who never =
learn to speak it. Others use the approach as well, but no group does it =
so much as linguists who want to claim great authority over its use =
without actually using it.
>=20
> There are definitely exceptions to the generality I'm about to make, =
but someone other than me once noted that Klingonists tended to fall =
into three groups:
>=20
> 1. Star Trek fans who almost never learned the language, though they =
sincerely struggled with it for years. There are a couple of wonderful =
exceptions to this who, through raw persistence have become fine =
speakers of the language.
>=20
> 2. Linguists who love to argue about the language and dig deeply into =
exactly how far each grammatical construction can be stretched before it =
becomes impossible to derive meaning from it. Again, there are fine =
exceptions.
>=20
> 3. Computer programmers or support people who mysteriously tend to =
learn the language within a year and find it relatively simple to =
express a range of meaning sometimes beyond what Okrand expected the =
language to reach.
>=20
> This was perhaps more true in the early years when Qanqor, Seqram, =
ghunchu'wI' and a handful of others, almost exclusively =
computer-involved people, learned the language. As years pass, people =
from a wider variety of backgrounds have joined in and added their patch =
to the quilt. There's room at the table for wide variety.
>=20
> There's also a quote from one of my coworkers about the variety of =
people in the world in general and in most groups, which perhaps I'll =
choose to write in Klingon instead of English:
>=20
> qo' chenmoHmeH Hoch chovnatlh poQlu' net Sovlaw' 'ach jIQoch: Hoch =
chovnatlh wIghaj neH.
>=20
> I'm not proposing that it's true. It's just humorous, and I think the =
humor carries in either language.
>=20
> pItlh
> lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
--Apple-Mail=_CA008ED6-0298-404E-A06A-F626C2B49CAC
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=us-ascii
<html><head></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; =
"><div><div>Begin forwarded message:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div =
style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
margin-left: 0px;"><span style=3D"font-family:'Helvetica'; =
font-size:medium; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.0);"><b>From: </b></span><span =
style=3D"font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium;">lojmIt tI'wI'nuv =
<<a =
href=3D"mailto:lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com">lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com</a>>=
;<br></span></div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; =
margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span =
style=3D"font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, =
1.0);"><b>Subject: </b></span><span style=3D"font-family:'Helvetica'; =
font-size:medium;"><b>Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Question regarding purpose =
clauses</b><br></span></div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: =
0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span =
style=3D"font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, =
1.0);"><b>Date: </b></span><span style=3D"font-family:'Helvetica'; =
font-size:medium;">April 30, 2012 10:53:54 AM EDT<br></span></div><div =
style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
margin-left: 0px;"><span style=3D"font-family:'Helvetica'; =
font-size:medium; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.0);"><b>To: </b></span><span =
style=3D"font-family:'Helvetica'; font-size:medium;">Felix Malmenbeck =
<<a =
href=3D"mailto:felixm@kth.se">felixm@kth.se</a>><br></span></div><br><d=
iv style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; =
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div =
apple-content-edited=3D"true">
<span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate; =
font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; =
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; =
orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: =
none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div>On Apr =
30, 2012, at 6:21 AM, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:</div></span></div><div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><div><blockquote type=3D"cite">Unfortunately, Okrand has =
(gasp!) written some pretty ugly canon =
sentences.<br></blockquote><br>That's certainly true, and it's worth =
considering under what conditions he wrote the various =
sentences:<br>{[wI]qIpmeH Qatlh'a'} was part of a movie script, so I'm =
guessing he put some amount of thought into it.<br>The interpretation of =
{qaSuchmeH jIpaSqu'}, however, was part of a newsgroup posting, and =
probably didn't receive as much thought. To add to that, it wasn't even =
his sentence to begin =
with.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Some of the worst canon =
in existence is in movies because of the editing process. valQIS's lines =
were all shot while she was speaking English and then dubbed afterwards =
and Okrand invented weird grammar to keep words coming out of her mouth =
while her lips were moving, even though what she otherwise would have =
said would have used fewer syllables. Then there's the "Target =
engines only" line that became "I wanted prisoners". An =
outtake of one became the other when the director realized he hadn't =
explained why he wanted the gunner to target engines only (actors =
attempting to say one thing, but not quite well enough to keep was given =
a new subtitle for the other line because the director didn't think of =
adding the other line until the actors were out of makeup and the set =
was broken down). Then there's that completely unintelligible emphatic =
mumble by an officer making some sort of empassioned argument while =
spreading out a map on a table. It seemed to be composed mostly of the =
syllable "wa" said over and over again.</div><div><br></div><div>And =
then there's {taH pagh taHbe'}. No thought went into that at all. He's =
on the set with a handful of prepared translated lines from MacBeth and =
other very Klingon-culturally-interesting scenes in Shakespeare, and the =
director turned to him and said, "Gimme 'To be or not to be.'" The =
actors were ready. The cameras were ready. Okrand knew he had a problem =
he didn't have time to solve well, so he =
improvised.</div><div><br></div><div>It is challenging to fathom how "we =
hit it" is the purpose of "it is difficult". Unless this is an =
unexplained idiom, it's a piss poor excuse for a sentence conveying =
meaning. Better would have been {Qatlh'a' wIqIpmeH Qu'?}. That would be =
hard to misinterpret.</div><div><br></div><div>... but then people are =
saying these things, and people say poorly expressed things all the =
time. The characters in question were back-woods Klingons with =
self-esteem issues. There is no indication they were particularly well =
educated or that they spoke particularly standard Klingon. They are not =
Klingon language instructors. They are guys, bored, perhaps a little =
stupid, and aimlessly wandering around space looking for trouble. Do you =
really want to learn to talk like they do?</div><br><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><div>It's interesting, though, to see the breadth of =
opinions on this topic:<br>I accept those canonical sentences and make =
certain extrapolations.<br>Most seem to accept those canonical sentences =
as being good sentences, but don't think my extrapolations are =
correct.<br>You seem to be skeptical towards the sentences, =
themselves.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I probably =
understand how to say things in Klingon better than Okrand. That doesn't =
mean that I have any intentions of taking his authority away from him. =
He created the language. I have enormous respect for him for that. That =
respect won't stop me from rolling my eyes when I see what he does with =
the language from time to time.</div><div><br></div><div>The issue at =
hand is that Okrand has never spoken the language in the way that most =
people here do. It's like he has to go back and learn it each time he =
has to write something. And sometimes, he forgets stuff or doesn't think =
of stuff while he comes up with these canon examples. Other times, he =
decides that humor is more important than consistency or than making the =
language better able to express a wide range of useful meanings. He has =
many motives and each has its turn in affecting the language. Making the =
language a good tool for clearly expressing meaning is only one of his =
motives, and it has to wait its turn in line with his other =
motives.</div><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div>...and I really do =
think there's a case to be made for all three of those positions, and =
probably many more variations thereof, which is why I'm glad we're =
having this discussion.<br><br><blockquote type=3D"cite">As for "I was =
going to visit you, but it was late," there are better =
options.<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">{tlhoy jIpaSmo' =
qaSuchbe'.} Klingon doesn't have an irrealis or =
subjunctive.<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">If you mean that =
something would have happened, except that X =
prevented<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">it, then you need to =
say that the thing didn't happen because of X.<br></blockquote><br>Marc =
didn't interpret {qaSuchmeH jIpaSqu'} to mean that the meeting didn't =
take place, though, as with {tlhoy jIpaSmo' qaSuchbe'}; he interpreted =
it as "I do visit you, but am very late.", and gave alternative =
translations for the describing a visit that was prevented by =
tardiness.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Either I missed =
something or the more complete transcript was not =
included.</div><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><blockquote =
type=3D"cite">In general, I think most people write better Klingon =
sentences if they begin with<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">an =
expression that they wish to make and then survey the grammatical =
tools<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">available in the =
language to find the best construction, instead of starting with =
a<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">grammatical construction and =
searching for the full range of expressions that =
can<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">be forced through =
it.<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote=
type=3D"cite">There are many posts to this list over the years that ask =
some variation on the<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">question: =
"We all agree that we can say X with grammatical tool Y, but can =
we<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">also say Z with it?" The =
answer is usually some variation on, "No."<br></blockquote><br>However, =
if we are to survey the grammatical tools available to us, we must know =
what those tools are. It seems to me that a natural way to find out is =
that when you find an example in canon, you ask yourself if it's a =
reasonbale construction, then check if there are more examples, and then =
ask your peers their =
opinions.<br><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div> I didn't =
really expect to dissuade you from doing this. It's a very popular =
approach to the language, especially among linguists who never learn to =
speak it. Others use the approach as well, but no group does it so much =
as linguists who want to claim great authority over its use without =
actually using it.</div><div><br></div><div><div>There are definitely =
exceptions to the generality I'm about to make, but someone other than =
me once noted that Klingonists tended to fall into three =
groups:</div><div><br></div><div>1. Star Trek fans who almost never =
learned the language, though they sincerely struggled with it for years. =
There are a couple of wonderful exceptions to this who, through raw =
persistence have become fine speakers of the =
language.</div><div><br></div><div>2. Linguists who love to argue about =
the language and dig deeply into exactly how far each grammatical =
construction can be stretched before it becomes impossible to derive =
meaning from it. Again, there are fine =
exceptions.</div><div><br></div><div>3. Computer programmers or support =
people who mysteriously tend to learn the language within a year and =
find it relatively simple to express a range of meaning sometimes beyond =
what Okrand expected the language to =
reach.</div><div><br></div><div>This was perhaps more true in the early =
years when Qanqor, Seqram, ghunchu'wI' and a handful of others, almost =
exclusively computer-involved people, learned the language. As years =
pass, people from a wider variety of backgrounds have joined in and =
added their patch to the quilt. There's room at the table for wide =
variety.</div><div><br></div><div>There's also a quote from one of my =
coworkers about the variety of people in the world in general and in =
most groups, which perhaps I'll choose to write in Klingon instead of =
English:</div><div><br></div><div>qo' chenmoHmeH Hoch chovnatlh poQlu' =
net Sovlaw' 'ach jIQoch: Hoch chovnatlh wIghaj =
neH.</div><div><br></div><div>I'm not proposing that it's true. It's =
just humorous, and I think the humor carries in either =
language.</div><div><br></div><div>pItlh</div><div>lojmIt =
tI'wI'nuv</div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_CA008ED6-0298-404E-A06A-F626C2B49CAC--
--===============9148411774817510167==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============9148411774817510167==--
