[Tlhingan-hol] nuqDaq ghaH 'arHa'e'?

[qunnoQ HoD]

> And that's my point. The KLI mailing list has developed some
> conventions which are, strictly speaking, not canon. There are
> ambiguities in the canon, and the KLI mailing list has developed
> conventions which are a matter of historical accident. It's not as
> clear cut as qunnoQ HoD described.

yes indeed ; there are ambiguities in canon,which have been clear even to
me in spite of the fact that I'm a beginner. Still,from the moment when any
ambiguity (in canon) is identified,there are two ways to proceed :

a. move within the boundaries of the ambiguity freely,as long as canon is
not being violated
b. ask about,what this list has accepted through the years as being the
answer/solution to the ambiguity in question

personally, I choose to go with a.

If Okrand purposefully or not,created ambiguities in canon,then who is to
speak for him narrowing down what Okrand wanted to say ? Yes,indeed,
conventions may have been established among members of this list throughout
the years,conventions which are to be respected. But personally I would not
blindly accept any convention created,unless there was at least an
interview of Okrand,where he would state that yes,the list's interpretation
is to be considered canon.

I think that a mistake very commonly being made is to over-analyze things ;
Of course I'm new here,and I realize that my opinion may not carry any
weight at all. And I would be the first to accept that most of the time I
may be wrong. I'm fine with that.. But lets remember the sentence written
on TKD page 18 :

"..and to respond in an intelligible, though somewhat brutish, manner. Most
Klingons will never know the difference.."

So,where is the need to try and "bring order to chaos", when the creator of
Klingon says that the "brutish manner" is indeed the canon way of tlhIngan
Hol ? An argument could be made,that when TKD was written,Okrand did not
have time to address every question/ambiguity. But even if that was the
case,haven't there passed so many years,so many qep'a' where every
ambiguity could be answered ? Or should we think that Okrand is unaware of
any ambiguities that may exist ?

So,I believe that ambiguities are meant to exist,maybe they are here to
stay,but as long as canon is not violated then there should be no problem..

qunnoQ HoD

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 11:23 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:

> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
> > Your reference to an earlier discussion points to a single message by
> you, which hardly seems conclusive to anyone but perhaps you.
>
> I linked to the first message that started the discussion, because
> that's the only way to link to a thread in the KLI mailing list.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the summary of the counterargument seems
> to be, "that's how the core members of the KLI have always interpreted
> it." And that's my point: what KLI members consider good Klingon isn't
> restricted to canon, it also consists of interpretations that they've
> layered on top of it.
>
> The best way to see that the KLI's interpretations aren't necessarily
> obvious or universal is to spend some time around beginners whose
> first language isn't American English (like at the qepHom in Germany).
> There are a number of words whose English definitions are ambiguous,
> which have been consistently interpreted in one way on the KLI mailing
> list (dominated by American English speakers), but which beginners
> whose first language isn't English and have to consult an English
> dictionary don't interpret in the same way. {mIS} is just the most
> obvious example.
>
> In fact, it's such an obvious and self-referential example that I
> can't believe it's not a deliberate joke, like the listing of
> {bachHa'} as a noun. Most English-to-other-language dictionaries have
> two (or more) entries for "be confused". When an English word has
> multiple unrelated meanings, Okrand has disambiguated them in TKD by a
> second definition which narrowed the sense of the first (e.g., "lie,
> fib" vs. "lie, recline"). Thus, one would expect to see the following
> entries:
>
> {mIS} v. be confused, mixed up
> {missing verb} v. be confused, perplexed
>
> I believe that Okrand couldn't pass up an opportunity to make a clever
> joke and left out the "be confused, perplexed" entry on purpose. If
> {mIS} meant what you think it meant, there would have been no reason
> for it to be glossed as "mixed up", which can only serve to
> disambiguate it from the other sense of "be confused". He could've
> left the definition as "be confused" without a disambiguating second
> definition, in which case most people would've interpreted it in the
> sense of mental perplexity (because that's the more common meaning of
> "be confused" in English), which makes me believe that he added "mixed
> up" on purpose.
>
> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
> > The form of the gloss, "be confused" suggests that it is likely a verb
> that can be adjectival, like "be big" or "be red, orange". These words
> generally don't take direct objects. You can't "be red" something.
>
> Where has anyone suggested otherwise? I agree it's an adjective. That
> it describes a property of the subject is exactly my point.
>
> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
> > The twins in your example might be often confused (for each other by
> someone else) but that confusion requires a third party as the agent of the
> confusion. The twins aren't actually doing anything. You are using the
> passive voice to hide the subject. No subject similarly be red something.
> But someone else must be in a state of confusion over the identity of the
> twins.
>
> If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it
> still make a sound? Yes, actually, it does. Something can actually be
> {chuS} without anyone around to hear it. {'echletHommey mIS} makes
> perfect sense to describe a mixed-up (physically confused) deck of
> cards regardless of whether anyone's around to be (mentally) confused
> by them. The fact that someone must be bored in order for something to
> be boring doesn't mean that {Dal} has a hidden subject, and the fact
> that something can be essential only with respect to something else
> doesn't mean that {'ut} has a hidden subject. Like {ghIH} "be messy",
> {mIS} "be confused, mixed up" is a property of the subject of the
> verb, in languages where such a verb (or adjective) exists.
>
> This is much more clear to speakers of languages in which "be
> confused, mixed up" (physically) is a completely different and
> unrelated word to "be confused, mentally perplexed". The fact that
> other languages have separate words for these concepts doesn't mean
> that Klingon does too, but the two meanings of "be confused" are not
> as tightly or obviously related as you seem to think. It would be an
> unfortunate coincidence if it just happened to be the case that
> Klingon works exactly like American English.
>
> I recognise that most KLI mailing list members consider {mIS} to mean
> "be confused, mentally perplexed" by what ghuchu'wI' called "twenty
> years of consistent usage" in the thread that I linked. I just think
> that those people who have assumed that's what it means have missed a
> joke that's obvious to people who speak languages where the two senses
> of "be confused" map to different words, and have "confused" two
> definitions of the word in a way that underlies the joke (and they are
> "confused"). A literal reading of the definition doesn't imply mental
> confusion. That's an extension of the given meaning. Perhaps Klingons
> have the same idiom in this instance as American English speakers, but
> that's "not canon".
>
> And that's my point. The KLI mailing list has developed some
> conventions which are, strictly speaking, not canon. There are
> ambiguities in the canon, and the KLI mailing list has developed
> conventions which are a matter of historical accident. It's not as
> clear cut as qunnoQ HoD described.
>
> --
> De'vID
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151121/4f7c7fce/attachment-0001.html>