<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/18/2021 3:25 PM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:640550C5-8C6F-4DEA-9976-459EB4A19ADE@mac.com">So,
looking at the New Words List, the source is listed as NEWS. The
“Works cited” list at the bottom of the page doesn’t have a
listing for NEWS, so I can’t tell you who put this word on the
list or what work it cites. I’m as clueless as you on this.</blockquote>
<p>It cites this newsgroup post: <a
href="http://klingonska.org/canon/1999-07-19b-email.txt">klingonska.org/canon/1999-07-19b-email.txt</a></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:640550C5-8C6F-4DEA-9976-459EB4A19ADE@mac.com">The Moon
goes around the Earth.
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">The Moon orbits the Earth.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">The Moon orbits around the Earth.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">These all mean exactly the same thing. There is not
so much as a shade of meaning difference among them.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Sure there is. <i>Orbit</i> (and <i>orbit around</i>) generally
refers to an elliptical or circular path, usually but not
exclusively caused by gravitational attraction. The word can be
used to talk about, say, walking around someone, but it usually
isn't. <i>Go around,</i> on the other hand, doesn't imply an
ellipse, circle, or gravity.</p>
<p>It is true that all three of those sentences can refer to the
same state, but it is <i>not</i> true that there is no semantic
difference between them. The sentence with <i>goes around</i>
does not by itself express the concept of an elliptical path
caused by gravity; the other two do. Only context tells you that
in the first sentence.</p>
<p><i>The dog goes around the Earth.<br>
The dog orbits the Earth.<br>
The dog orbits around the Earth.</i></p>
<p>In the first sentence, we might be talking about a dog that sails
in a ship around the planet. Or we might be talking about a
dogstronaut. The other two sentences are almost certainly talking
about a dogstronaut.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:640550C5-8C6F-4DEA-9976-459EB4A19ADE@mac.com">
<div class="">Myself, being foolish enough to wish that Klingon
could be a language in which things can be said more clearly
than in English, I’ve always favored definitions that made it
clear which of the three cases apply to each verb, but it’s a
fool’s goal. I’d love for case 3 to be forbidden, but if wishes
were fishes…</div>
</blockquote>
<p>That was obviously never a design goal of Klingon, nor do I see
any reason anyone would think of it as something to strive for.
Klingon is, in general, more vague than English. Its vocabulary is
much smaller, even with all the additions in recent years, and
not, I think, simply because we haven't discovered all the words
yet. English is an extraordinarily large language, having borrowed
from many sources, and I don't see any reason to think that
Klingon has done this. Klingon's syntax is far more strict and
limited than English's, making it less expressive. Klingon is
prone to dropping words, leaving behind sentences that only make
sense in context. Klingon grammarians themselves only define three
parts of speech, giving the last the telling name of <i>leftovers.
</i>Expecting perfectly glossed words, complete with descriptions
of its arguments?<br>
</p>
<p>No, the strength of Klingon is not its clarity, it is its punch.
It is brisk. It doesn't delve into great detail. It is
utilitarian. It is not a language of precise rules; it is a
language of "good enough."<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>