Re: Slang

Cool about Klingon slang.. Yes, why not just do the normal way
of things, use a common word but for a new meaning or shading of
an word. Such as the classic "Gay" meaning happy, but also can
mean wierd/different, as well as homosexual, but also mean
something not cool "Thats so gay".. Some times the words has a
tie to the others, but not always directly. (using Gay cause its
easier to use for an example!)

Why asking, someone was giving me guff for using words like

Yeppers
Lingo
and other words that I used, some are from my own dielect of
English, or from other usage.

The fun of living in a state (Alaska) where you get all kinds of
English spoken, from my own NW US form of General (With NE
shadings), to Southern (Texas and near by oil centers), as well
as military forms (where ever the military personnel are from),
as well as large native language groups and their fun usages and
sounds, as well as large immigrant population as well as
Russian/Ukrainians, many have family going back 100+ years.  Let
along a large Korean/Japanese/Phillipino and like groups. And
yes, a large Hispanic/Latino mixed group.

Conlang, how much a conlang is influenced by the creator, as
well as by those who speak it.

Esperanto, how much has it been influenced by the Natlang
speakers, who learn the AuxLang/Conlang called Esperanto. Then
those who speak it as somethng close to a NATLANG?

How much as Klingon for example, or Quenya/Sindarian, changed
cause of those who speak it, changing things?

More comments laters.

Mike

Ken Lay dead, or just bought he way out?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Newton" <philip.newton@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 12:45 AM
Subject: Re: Slang


> On 7/6/06, Michael Adams <abrigon@...> wrote:
> >
> > Anyone have slang in their Conlang?
>
> There's slang in Klingon, described in _Klingon for the
Galactic Traveller_.
>
> A particularly popular slang construction is {-luH} or
{-la'}[*],
> since it fills a hole that's a bit more difficult to fill with
(what
> we know of) the standard language than many of the other slang
words
> and constructions presented in KGT.
>
> I'm told that some people use this construction, and when
someone
> points out their "error", they respond that they're speaking
slang...
> when, in fact, that is the only non-standard component of
their
> speech. (Which doesn't make that much sense; if someone is
good enough
> to use colloquialisms, using only one but none of the others
seems
> odd.)
>
>
> [*] For those of you interested, Klingon nouns and verbs can
take
> suffixes, which come in classes. No noun or verb may take more
than
> one suffix of a given class, so a noun with a type-2 suffix
and a
> type-5 suffix is fine but one with two type-3 suffixes is not.
>
> Mostly, suffixes in the same class are syntactically
similar -- for
> example, type-7 verb suffixes deal with aspect, or type-4
nouns
> suffixes are determiners and possessive --, but the two type-5
verb
> suffixes {-laH} "be able" and {-lu'} "unspecified subject;
'passive'"
> have nothing in particular in common besides the fact that
they're
> both type 5.
>
> This makes it difficult, in the standard language, to use a
> straightforward verb-plus-suffixes construction for something
such as
> "I cannot be killed", though one way out is to explicitly use
{vay'}
> "someone, anyone, something, anything" as a subject rather
than the
> "unspecified subject" marker.
>
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>

Reply