tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 20 08:30:48 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: An offer you shouldn't refuse!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 02:21:01 -0700
>From: "Kenneth Traft" <[email protected]>
I *really* don't think I want to be in this discussion. We certainly DON'T
need gratuitous character-assassination on the list.
>----------
>From: [email protected] on behalf of William H. Martin
>Sent: Sunday, August 18, 1996 9:56 PM
>To: Multiple recipients of list
>Subject: Re: RE: An offer you shouldn't refuse!
>>There are many abrasive, headstrong, etc. people on this list, none of whom
>have >earned Glen's special status here. His intensive lack of interest in
>cooperation, selling >goods on commission and then keeping the money, and his
>willingness take the >language and boldly go in directions no one has chosen
>to follow have earned him this >status.
>Cooperation can only go so far and when "creative and intellectual"
>differences cannot be resolved each must go their separate ways. As to Glen
>keeping money for the work he has done, What's your point? Glen is not making
>money.
I think Will had some other meaning in mind, not just Glen running a
non-non-profit shop. Will knows what he means better than I, though, since
I was never involved in any of the situations in question, so I'll let him
answer.
>>Glen simply made up new words whenever he wanted to. My favorite was his
>>collection of terms for extended family members.
>The made up words as you and others are so often point out are normally
>constructions of words which exist in the "canon". He doesn't make a word,
>but uses word consturction to create the idea. That is exactly what this list
>and the many contributers tell us to do. I like his extended family member
>contructions.
>Aunt: SoS be'nI' (mother's sister)
> vav be'nI' (father's sister)
>Uncle: SoS loDnI' (mother's brother)
> vav loDnI' (father's brother)
>Cousin: vav loDnI' puq (uncle's child)
> vav be'nI' puq (uncle's child)
> SoS be'nI' puq (Aunt's child)
> Sos loDnI' puq (Aunt's child)
>(a couple - are there other specific one's that are offensive?)
Wait, we use the same constructions! But I remember Glen's using
"be'nI''a'" for female cousin, "loDnI''a'" for male cousin, etc... THOSE I
think I would take exception to.
>The KLI uses the word <<pabpo'>> came about I am not familiar with the
>where's or why, but it looks to me like a noun/verb construction. I would
>think that <<pab po'wI'>> would be more appropiate.
Yep. You have us there; that's a recognized wrongness.
>>While he was right about what had been common overuse of {-ghach}, he was far
>from >alone in that insight, and when he made that pronouncement, he used it
>as an >argument for using any verb as a noun whenever you wanted to. You seem
>to have >conveniently forgotten that part.
>You lost me here. Sorry.
>You rewrite history. Glen's conclusion to that argument was that you could use
>any verb as a noun. This was NOT in line with Dr. Okrand's explanation.
>I don't think he was saying that! The context was that if the original way
>the use of <-ghach> was argued for then it would follow. His contention was
>always that <-ghach> was equatible to "-tion" or "-ness" only. This always
>the way Glen explained it to me and used it when we talked about it after
>Captain Krankor's article came out in HolQeD.
Er, no. Read Glen's article in HolQeD, and his letters to me. He said
(correctly) that -ghach could only go on suffixed verbs, BUT WHAT'S MORE
that we could pretty freely use bare verbs as nouns, if they made sense. I
know I had a problem with that last part.
I don't think I can answer more of this.
Try to keep this on the level, OK?
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMhnaH8ppGeTJXWZ9AQGHMQL/U3Nu+DrjcXwpAg9EFNB9SmqRezcLtwBT
RXzrmaRPVNTU7TQYXOx64/HuUKINgvaNPbi7Jukw7fD3ZFD8CIdYd6k08Znjbz7I
ENuSscl83D7t3OJtqwLzYU14yW+Ztum4
=TKVl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----