[tlhIngan Hol] Quick learner problem
elizabeth.lawrence08 at gmail.com
Wed Jan 4 16:31:00 PST 2017
I don't think people are mostly being told "You shouldn't say X." I think
it is generally more "This is the way you would convey that sentiment in
Klingon, which is by no means a direct translation." I suspect this is
very much what Lieven was getting at; once you have absorbed the language,
and are able to construct in it rather than just translate to and from it,
it ceases to feel awkward to recast your thoughts from your native language
pattern into the Klingon pattern.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm at kth.se> wrote:
> > Get used to the language, and soon you will find
> > out that your problem was not a real problem.
> ...or that it really was, but then you'll be better equipped to deal with
> it and suggest possible solutions.
> > Language is not a code, don't just talk
> > Klingon, you must think like a klingon.
> I agree with this, and I also don't. You don't need to adopt the mindset
> of a Klingon, but you do need to consider the logic and aesthetic of the
> language. You don't need to consider whether or not your sentence will
> bring glroy to the empire, but you do need to get used to the idea of
> splitting long and complicated noun compounds into multiple sentences, and
> using subordinate clauses where you might use an adverb in English.
> It's interesting to think about how Klingon culture might influence how a
> particular concept is expressed, but we should be careful about making
> assumptions about what concepts a Klingon would be interested in expressing
> (not accusing you of doing this; just giving a general word of warning).
> For example, when talking about approximations, somebody will usually
> remind us all that according to Conversational Klingon: "Though Klingons
> are often inaccurate, they are never approximate."
> ...which is a relevant piece of information and great guidance for writing
> natural-sounding Klingon dialogue, but it shouldn't stop us from discussing
> how to make approximations in Klingon.
> For one thing, it is certainly an oversimplification.
> For another, a language should not come with pre-defined boundaries on
> what you can or cannot talk about; some things may be expressed more
> concisely or more conveniently than others, and some - such as the word
> "hello" - may require anything from a footnote to a 200-page appendix to
> explain, but if we cannot express novel thoughts in a language, then we're
> getting into some Orwellian territory.
> ...and finally, whether or not a Klingon ever has dwelled upon a
> particular concept, a Klingon-speaker *might*, and I'd like to believe that
> that's worth something. Klingon has both a fictional speaker base and a
> real one, and I believe that both should be cherished.
> We must approach the language with an understanding that it is still very
> young and doesn't have the benefit of tens of thousands of years' worth of
> evolution to fall back on. We must be aware that sometimes, saying
> something will require quite a lot of creativity, and sometimes patience as
> we wait either for Marc to tell us how something works or for the community
> to develop some sort of best practice recommendation. And we must accept
> that sometimes, just as in real life, the language won't evolve in the way
> you're hoping.
> ...but that doesn't mean that it isn't also fine to admit that there are
> holes in Klingon. I want more guidelines for how to talk in probabilities
> in Klingon, and how to talk about voting, and LGBTQ matters, and fiction,
> and archipelagos, and cladistics, and algebra, and Newton's (or Kl'Vok's?)
> laws of physics, and the relativity of simultaneity, and neutrino
> oscillations, and many, many other things.
> I'm fine with the fact that there are no easy answers to these questions.
> In fact, I find that quite exciting, because it means that there is still
> much to learn, whether by word of Maltz or through discussion. However,
> whenever I'm told that I'm wrong for wanting something because it's not
> Klingon enough, or because it means I want to turn the language into a
> "code", or that I should go off and create my own language institute, a bit
> of that enthusiasm dies.
> Fortunately, I'm quite invested in the language, and putting a dent in my
> enthusiasm won't keep me away for long. However, I worry that a lot of new
> speakers might not feel too inclined to stick around if we shoot them down
> for asking the wrong questions.
> So perhaps, when somebody asks "How do you say X?", we need to be a little
> bit less eager to say "You shouldn't say X.", and a bit more willing to say
> "Well, we don't know ... yet."
> From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces at lists.kli.org> on behalf of
> Lieven <levinius at gmx.de>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 19:39
> To: tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> Subject: [tlhIngan Hol] Quick learner problem
> After thinking about the latest heated discussions, here some thoughts
> or advice for any other beginners.
> I believe that mayqel is struggling with some kind of a "data overflow"
> in a computer: In an incredibly short time, he acquired mostly all of
> the grammar and I'm sure he also knows a big amount of vocabulary, but
> his brain cannot combine it properly.
> What he is lacking, is experience. Only experience teaches the brain to
> use the learned material. Language is not a code, don't just talk
> Klingon, you must think like a klingon.
> I use to tell my students: If you encounter a problem, an idea you
> cannot express, then put it aside. Get used to the language, and soon
> you will find out that your problem was not a real problem.
> Lieven L. Litaer
> aka Quvar valer 'utlh
> Grammarian of the KLI
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tlhIngan-Hol