tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 20 13:59:50 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
tlhIngan Hol loHvaD tlhIngan Hol
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: tlhIngan Hol loHvaD tlhIngan Hol
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 16:59:44 -0500
>Guidovo':
>>So, I saw three articles this time by people prying apart basic grammatical
>>principles and stretching interpretations of canon to try to be able to
>>invent new, even more incredibly ridiculous word formations and neologisms,
>>Glen being the biggest stinker about this,
>And the other two...? I can see one other which you might be referring to,
>but I hope you are not referring to mine. One thing I explicitly strove to
>do
>was NOT to suggest new word-formation / interpretation techniques on the
>basis of my analyses. I simply wanted to compare two different Klingon
>grammatical constructions to each other, and see what we can learn
>about them in the process, since the description in TKD is so sketchy.
>I didn't propose new things, in fact, I proposed to limit old things. {{:)
>--Holtej
Your work was certainly not among my complaints. However, I felt that Krankor
was a bit overreactive in his strong opposition to the limiting of {-ghach}.
I probably was a bit out of line, tho, for complaining about Donelly's
article on etymology and compounds. My major complaint was that he was taking
the individual elements of compounds to mean exactly what they mean alone,
e.g., {meqba'}: it does not have anything to do with a procedure where one
sits and reasons anymore than the English word "carpet" has anything to do
with a car or a pet. I was riled up just because I was frustrated at not
seeing enough Klingon in the journal of the Klingon Language Institute.
That's what I'm hoping for. It's about time after three years to see some
real Klingon on the pages of "HolQeD."
Guido