[Tlhingan-hol] Things missing

Thu Oct 29 08:46:42 PDT 2015

We ask for more canon because something is particularly difficult to express, and because we never want to pass up an opportunity to have more, even though in most cases we have more toys than we can play with already. 

Imagine us back in 1990 when there was mo word for grasp or hold or seize, and the best we cools manage was ghajchoH. Hamlet was translated with no word for window or table. I wrote a novel containing a scene that took place on a bridge, not a meH, one over a river, and there's only so many times you can write {bIQtIq HeHmey rarmoHbogh ravHom} before you say "Marc, could you please ask Maltz how he would refer to a bridge?"

Some people ask for words because they haven't grasped what the words that Klingon has can do. It's an honour to be able ask and a greater honour to receive. 

We ask for words to talk about the things we want to talk about, but we try to be generous and ensure they are things others want to talk about too. Sometimes people ask for or about words because they think it would be cool if Klingon worked in a particular way, did something few languages do, and sometimes people pose questions to Marc in that form to stimulate him into responding. 

Marc is the only source of canon. Marc has a tendency to appear to confirm people's theories, by smiling and saying "that's interesting" so we've learned to record his actual words and have witnesses before proclaiming "Marc said." The controversial cases are projects in which Marc participated without being the driver: TalkNow was done in collaboration, with, as I understand it, Marc providing vocabulary where the standard method of just saying what the thing was didn't work. In theory Marc has approved all the descriptions, and I think they are excellent. I was naming all the items correctly before seeing the Klingon provided, until I got to my favourite, which to me was clearly a pob taj.  I laughed out loud when I saw that the men had called it a rol taj.

paq'batlh was done by a different process. I'm not sure if every page was Marc's at first draft, but the draft pages were presented to a group of grammarians, two or three of us per page, and we were asked to find errors. We didn't know at first that it was Marc's work, and then we started finding unfamiliar words, like ngIq. Our proofing pass was done rapidly, hungry, (it was lunchtime and others were waiting for us) and in some cases with one of the reviewers reading upside-down. I don't think anyone used reference material. We suggested rewording when something was confusing, but for the most part it was adding the lu- prefix, pointing out when a V7 suffix was used after 'e', and trying to get information on the new words. Had we known would still be unclear on usage of ngIq after all this time, we would have pressed harder, but I doubt it would have been to any avail.

I wrote this long answer, on my phone no less, before realizing you had asked the questions rhetorically and provided your own long answer. I'll go read that properly on my laptop to see what points I want to respond to. 

- Qov

> On Oct 29, 2015, at 7:17, qunnoQ HoD <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> it was very interesting to read all the various replies,with regard to my original post ; still i believe it is important for me to address two issues that came up. Two issues which i believe were brought forward as questions to me.
> 
> 1. why do you ask for more canon ?
> 2. who is to decide what should be considered valid/canon ?
> 
> although i could provide short answers to these questions i would rather take the long way around.
> 
> lets start by writing some thoughts that may appear irrelevant at first,but later on,it will be understood why i wrote them.
> 
> the skill someone has in Klingon can be measured by tests/grammar exercises etc. how would you measure though how much he likes it ? how passionate he is about it ? how much he wants to learn it ? is there a test ? a way to find out ? i don't think so..
> Klingon (and every other language constructed or not) falls under the category "education". Surely not a kind of education you would profit from - professionally - but it is a kind of education nevertheless ; What is one of the most basic characteristics/attributes of education ? The fact that it becomes a part of you. It becomes a part of yourself,and no one,no one can ever separate you from it. Lets say you are an engineer. No matter what happens you will always be an engineer. Even if war breaks out,even if you find yourself stranded 1000 miles away from home,you will still be an engineer. Your knowledge is a part of you,and it cannot be separated from you. Ever. Furthermore education comes as an irreversible process which changes you -irreversebly too-. You can't unlearn what you have already learned.
> Even if you changed profession,you would still be an engineer.
> 
> So to answer the first question.. 
> 
> "why do you ask for more canon ?"
> 
> It is not that i'm asking for more canon. It is that i want/i demand/accept nothing less than Klingon to be perfect. Yes,now i'm a beginner. But the time will come,when i will be able to write in Klingon ; when this language will have been made a part of myself,the same way that my heart is a part of my body. It will be part of my education/skills/abilities and i expect nothing less than for it to be complete. To be as whole as possible. To be far more superior than any other constructed language. I expect and demand "borg perfection",the same way that Klingon will have expected from me time/persistence/patience in order for it to become a part of me.
> 
> "why do you ask for more canon ? after all you can always find "ways around" any deficiencies it may have"
> 
> ..true, but ask yourselves. If you had a torn posterior cruciate ligament in your knee,would you be ok with it ? You would be in pain from time to time,but surely you could find a "way around" it too. You could take meds,use a brace,do physical therapy etc,etc. Why would you prefer your knee to be "perfect" ? wouldn't all those "ways around" suffice ?
> You would want your knee to be "perfect" not only because you wouldn't want to feel pain or activity restrictions. You would want your knee to be perfect because it is a part of your body and you want/demand/accept nothing else,than for it to be perfect.
> 
> so,because i love Klingon and because it is becoming/will eventually become one of the languages i speak,because it is becoming a part of myself i want/demand/accept nothing else than for it to be perfect. Its as simple as that.
> 
> Second question..
> 
> who is to decide what should be considered valid ? who should create canon ?
> 
> i believe i'm the last person to answer those questions. as i noticed at the archives,this mailing list goes way back so i think that experienced Klingonists along with Okrand could decide that. Lets approach this from another angle ; who's to decide whether a pharmaceutical product is safe ? The FDA of course,right ? Who created the FDA ? The country whose people were to be served by the FDA.
> 
> The subject of "fragmentation" came up ; "if an institution would create canon,then wouldn't there be the possibility of schisms in the community,of alternate versions of Klingon cropping up,every time a group of Klingonists would disagree ?"
> 
> At first glance this is a valid argument. Even I,would be tempted to agree. I mean lets face it. I always buy nexus phones because i want the "pure android experience". And of course my phone isn't a part of me. How would i be ok with any kind of "watered down" version of a language which is to become a part of myself ? The answer is that of course i wouldn't be ok ; that's why i wrote -even in my original post- that this institution would have to be recognized as the "sole authority". The same way that the FDA is the only organization with the authority to act in its area of expertise.
> Surely someone could go on,and still use unsafe health products. But that would be his choice,and eventually his problem.
> 
> I truly wonder.. If we were to say that to create an institution which could create canon would lead to fragmentation, then would that mean that the opposite would guarantee 100% canon conformity ? that the lack of such an institution guarantees "purity" ?
> 
> If Klingon has inherent deficiencies in grammar/vocabulary,then one would be forced to go through all kinds of "linguistic acrobatics" to get the desired meaning through. Wouldn't that inevitably lead to ambiguity in regard to the meaning he's trying to express ? Why shouldn't i think that all these "acrobatics" wouldn't eventually lead to a sentence which's meaning could be interpreted differently depending on the interpretation of the individual listener ?
> So,wouldn't we eventually have a language which's meaning would fragment/dissolve depending on the individual ?
> 
> I can understand perfectly the argument that "what you describe can't ever happen for copyright reasons". But i can't accept the argument "even if there weren't copyright issues,then again canon shouldn't be created"
> 
> It is the law of nature that unless you adapt,unless you overcome deficiencies then you'll be rendered obsolete. A law of nature,not mine ; And this is something i do not like,something i do not want,something i do not wish for a language that is slowly becoming a part of myself.
> 
> qunnoQ HoD
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:27 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2015 2:16 AM, Tim Stoffel wrote:
>>> Considering what the Klingon language community has accomplished over
>>> the years, it would be a shame to think that the end of Marc Okrand
>>> (which I hope is no time soon!) could be the end of the Klingon
>>> language.
>>> 
>>> We need a mechanism to keep the language alive.
>> 
>> Such a mechanism can be dreamed up at such time as Okrand leaves us or decides not to do Klingon anymore. Why try to impose it now? The language won't suddenly evaporate when he's gone.
>> 
>> -- 
>> SuStel
>> http://trimboli.name
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
>> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151029/63593b9d/attachment-0001.html>