tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 21 19:55:46 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: RE: An offer you shouldn't refuse!
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: RE: RE: An offer you shouldn't refuse!
- Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 22:55:37 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Tue, 20 Aug 1996 02:21:01 -0700 Kenneth Traft
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ----------
> 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!
>
> >While I should just let this pass, there are too many blatent inaccuracies...
>
> I thank you, Mr. Martin, for your comments. I have worked with Glen for a few
> years now, but I have only his accounts of the problems he has faced from many
> in the KLI. I know his views are slanted, as I believe are yours and the
> others. When feelings and EGOs are bruised, reason is oftentimes lost.
Good points, all.
> >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. He isn't even covering his expenses most of the time. If it hadn't
> been for the many people who have donated money to his projects and
> volunteered their time and energy to those projects they wouldn't have been
> realized. He had attended conventions, given classes, and made guest
> appearences for very little money and in many instances these did not cover
> his expenses.
I am not talking about volunteers here. Probably out of
financial desperation, Glen offered to sell someone else's
goods on consignment. He then sold the goods and kept all
the money. The person who gave him the goods thereby lost a
lot of money spent on the goods in the first place. Whether
Glen needed the money to cover his expenses is irrelavant.
It was not his money to keep.
He was supposed to keep part of the money. That's what
consignment means. He was supposed to return the unsold
goods and pay money for the sold goods. He did neither.
That REALLY hurt his image here.
> >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)
That's not the word he originally published for aunt.
> 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?)
These are not the words he published for these relatives.
Perhaps he rethought his earlier fabrications and has
subsequently published these far more reasonable terms. The
terms I saw were new combinations in the style of SoSnI'
and its ilk.
> 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.
It is a term we have come to wince over, though it has
basically been used in conversation more than in published
tutorials intended for beginners. We tend to be a little
more careful about that sort of publication.
>
> >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.
I lost you? The article Glen wrote had an introductory half
which insightfully noted that {-ghach} should not be used
on verbs without suffixes. He then turned up the heat in
the second half of the article where he openly proposed
that we should feel free to use any verb we want as a noun
any time we want.
His argument was that the only reason we needed {-ghach} to
turn a verb into a noun was if that verb needed a
verb suffix to convey its meaning. The rest of the time, we
could just use the verb alone as a noun. At least half of
his text in the article was dedicated to explaining that
proposal.
I fully accepted the first half and completely rejected the
second half. None of that has changed.
>> 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!
You should reread his article.
> 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.
This is completely inaccurate. His argument was that since
you could use any verb as a noun any time you wanted,
unless it had a verb suffix on it, you had to have {-ghach}
for those times when a verb had a verbal suffix. The rest
of the time, just use the verb as a noun.
While Okrand can do this, the rest of us can't, unless he
does it first for each verb. I personally like it better
the less often this happens because having the same word
work either as a noun or verb makes it easier to translate
into Klingon and much harder to understand the resulting
text.
That has been my argument with Glen all along. Every single
interpretation I've seen come from him has the single
priority of making it easier to translate English sentences
into Klingon. He never shows any concern for making the
resulting Klingon sentences clearer or more meaningful.
When you have one as the priority, the other suffers, and
Glen and I stand on opposite sides of these two values.
I could not care less if a particular English sentence is
difficult to translate into English. I want Klingon to have
the power to beautifully express meaning. He wants to
translate the Bible and Hamlet all on his own at a fast
pace, so his highest priority is on making that task easy.
Never mind that the result is perhaps impenetrable or uses
constructions that the rest of the Klingon community
considers to be embarrassing. He doesn't care. He just
wants the finished work done quickly so he can brag about
having completed a given translation first.
And it pisses me off because I care about the quality of
the finished works. If something is a year or two late, I
don't care. I just want the finished work to be something
someone can read and richly appreciate. Not hero worship.
Art. Craft.
The Klingon Hamlet was very late, and while it is
imperfect, it is massively impressive in its beauty. The
text will be something for people to marvel over for
decades. A group of people worked hard on it, throwing
their genius back and forth, sharpening and polishing until
it truely shines.
Glen has no pressure to make his work good beyond his own
discipline, since he won't listen to anyone else. He allows
himself to share company only with those who accept that he
is superior, so he never has competition within his camp.
No one edits his work. He would not allow it.
A friend once told me that first rate musicians prefer to
play with first rate musicians. Second rate musicians
prefer to play with third rate musicians. I suggest
that there is a strong possibility that Glen is a second
rate musician.
> >He would have more resources if he chose to cooperate with others. Instead,
> he >chooses to have complete control over things, and so he has complete
> control over a >photocopier where a group might be able to muster the
> resources to publish a real >book.
>
> When your ideas and beliefs diverge so much from others, working together
> cannot be an option. I have found him to be unreasonable at times, but he's
> from the old school and his dogmatic attitude is shared by others. Some who
> argue their own way even after Marc Okrand has said, "this is how it is." I
> have not know Glen to argue against "canon". He has nothing but respect for
> Dr. Okrand and after all, Dr. Okrand is the "father creator". It has been
> argued that some in the KLI are too "rigid" in their use of the language and
> make it difficult to work in cooperation. "Tit for tat -- is the pot calling
> the kettle black?"
The major challenge I enjoy with the Klingon language is to
work within the restrictions of the most conservative
interpretation of the grammar and vocabulary that we can
all agree on, and still express something clearly, making
the best use of the strongest tools in the language for
making each specific statement. I do not respect those who
choose instead to distort the language in order to avoid
the effort required to answer this challenge. They damage
an environment I thrive in.
> >He has taken written works and art and published them, selling them for real
> money >without offering anything to those whose works he copied.
>
> While he doesn't offer money, Glen does give them copies of his works.
As I have heard from more than one source, sometimes people
discover their work in one of Glen's publications without
having ever been asked if it would be okay to publish it,
without giving credit to the real author and without
offering compensation, despite the fee charged for the
publication, which Glen collects. This is outside of the
bounds of moral publishing practice.
> Maybe
> it doesn't equal dollar for dollar, but as I stated earlier, Glen is not
> making money. If he had the money, he'd gladly give it. He doesn't have
> money so he gives in his merchandise. There are still quite a few people who
> continue to give to Glen and if they feel slighted, you'd think they'd stop.
> Glen has quite a few faithful followers. Many of them are KLI members, and
> many of them are on this list. They continue to give support in the
> background even if they don't want to openly acknowledge it openly. They must
> feel they are receiving some value or one would think they'd stop. If someone
> feels slighted by Glen and the ILS write me. My EMAIL address is
> [email protected]. If I can make some kind of retribution I will.
You should not be responsible for Glen's actions. I see
that he is quite the hero for you. I do not enjoy saying
bad things about anyone or anything that someone else
values. Meanwhile, a little dose of accuracy might be
helpful.
> >He is no demon, but I can't stand to see him so inaccurately praised. The
> truth is, he >has been a positive force in the growth of the language through
> his zeal, yet a lot of >people have been hurt by his reckless determination to
> own the language and do with >it what he chooses. His efforts to put out his
> inferior version of Hamlet just before ours >was especially insulting.
>
> Ah, the great Hamlet uprising. I'm sorry, but I am overly impressed with the
> <tlhIngan Hol> in the KLI's Hamlet. The presention is <'IH>, but I found it
> very awkward to read and the representation of the English was radically
> different in many of the longer passages. My opinion and definitely not
> shared by everyone.
I'm confused. You say you are overly impressed with it and
then you present a criticism of it. I guess you meant that
you were not overly impressed with it. I am sorry. That is
truely your loss. For myself, I'm absolutely amazed that
Nick maintained Iambic Pentameter while writing things I
can clearly understand. I expected to not be able to
understand it, since I found much of his earlier writings
very obtuse, but as I translated the lines I played at
qep'a' and realized that it was verse and not just prose, I
was stunned.
> I admit that I have to use the dictionary a lot because, I just can't retain
> the vocabulary for any length of time and I am not adept at consturcting
> complex sentences (one of the reasons I came to this list). Very little of my
> time is spent in the study of Klingon and I hoped subscribing to this list
> would allow me to spend more time in this pursuit. But my time is pulled in
> too many other directions. This doesn't mean I don't have a fair
> understanding of Klingon, because I do. I'm just a lot s l o w e r at it!
Many of us are slow. While I do consider myself to be an
expert, I am quite slow. qep'a' has helped with speed more
than anything else. Meanwhile, clarity is still more
important to me than speed.
> Glen's "Hamlet" was a paraphrase and he said as much in his intro. More like
> a reader's digest of Hamlet (cutting away a lot of the boring tedious dialogue
> making more concise tedious and boring dialogue -- boy to I hate Shakespeare).
> The title itself leads to a realize it is more humorous approach; "Homlet:
> Prince of Kronos (The Hard Bones Blues)".
This is exactly my point. Glen's consistent priority has
been to get more stuff out the door. If it's not so good,
who cares. Nobody reads it anyway, right?
> In all fairness to Glen, the KLI version was way way overdue in publication.
> The fans were asking for Shakespeare (specifically Hamlet because of Star Trek
> VI). Glen did a lot of the stuff on his own because he needed it for his
> classes, convention appearences and other events. Since he had so much done
> he published it. I would like to believe his intention was not an affront to
> the KLI and its Hamlet. As to its being inferior, that's a matter of opinion
> and it is definitely not shared by everyone.
If you consider Glen your hero, you may consider his
photocopied Reader's Digest paraphrase of Hamlet to be
superior. If you don't consider him your personal hero, you
won't have much of a reason to comet to that conclusion.
> <<reckless determination to own the language>> I've heard this said about
> many of the people on this list. Glen has never claimed or desired to "own
> the language". He just uses its frame work and versitility I believe was
> intended in the Klingon Dictionary and bring them to the Klingon community.
> Who has been hurt and in what way?
Those who lost money either through stolen goods "on
consignment" were hurt. Those who were surprised to find
their work in one of Glen's publications with a price tag
on the cover were hurt. Those who spent years making
sure that Hamlet upheld high standards as a literary and
linguistic work were hurt. Those who have received rather
insulting mailings directly from Glen were hurt.
Not that we run around bleeding or anything. Glen does not
usually bother me. I rarely think of him. When I see him
heroized on this list by one of his blind followers, he
bothers me. mu'oy'be'. munuQ neH, 'ach munuQbej.
> >Then, there's that little matter of his openly declaring war on KLI...
>
> I believe that the first shots fired were by some of the KLI members.. He
> isn't declaring war, but responding to the many attacks, behind his back,
> where he did not have the opportunity to defend himself. I am a strong
> supporter of the Interstellar Language School. I am also a member of the KLI
> and tell people about the things the KLI has/does whenever I can. The hard
> feelings and constant attacks from both Glen and the KLI members makes me very
> uncomfortable (I know this uncomfortableness is felt by others who support
> both the KLI and the ILS). I would like to see a more harmonious relationship
> and Glen has promised to tone criticism of the KLI down. He has been attacked
> and a lot of the attacks were unwarrented. He got defensive. (I believe your
> Hamlet comment was an example of how people lash out when they feel slighted.
> The rancor in that message was obvious.) I will be helping him while he is in
> Russia. One of the things I'd like to see is less fighting and more
> constructive criticism.
You will see more of that if you produce less blatent hero
worship and inaccurate, defensive misreporting of past
events. You defend an article Glen wrote that you
apparently have not even read. Until you did that, I had no
reason to say anything about Glen at all, good or bad.
If he were presented to the list as a human being with some
skill and history with the language, I'd have no problem.
Instead, he presents himself, and you present him as a
superior to everyone else. No one should criticise him, no
matter what.
I do not enjoy that kind of privilege and I do not wish to.
I answer to my errors. I speak among peers. This is true
for everyone here. Why is Glen supposed to be that
different? What has he done that somehow insulates him from
any responsibility for his actions and his words?
He does not seek peers. He seeks inferiors. He
attacks anyone threatening to be a peer. That is his
problem here. That is the problem he is not trying to
solve, and until we get past THAT little point of friction,
he is unlikely to become welcome here, and news of him and
praise for him is likely to stir negative response.
I strongly suspect that if you walked out of your house one
day and saw a bright light in the sky and it leapt down and
struck you in the forehead and you heard a loud clap of
thunder and fell backwards and suddenly, you became better
at speaking Klingon than Glen, you'd find that you were no
longer welcome in his organization. Meanwhile, you'd be
VERY welcome HERE. More than anything else, that is the
difference between KLI and Glen's organization.
> Ken wrote:
> >> One of my philosophy professor's favorite phase was "throwing the baby out
> with the
> >> bathwater". To dismiss Glen's work simply because they aren't as "pretty"
> as
> >> those of the KLI or because Glen is Glen, "thows the baby out with the
> >> bathwater."
>
>
> Mr. Martin replied:
> >This is one baby many of us wouldn't miss.
>
> Maybe you and the other's wouldn't miss, but the Klingon Community would. Not
> everything that goes though the KLI or this board is perfect either. I think
> that the Klingon Community should have as many examples as they can to review
> and to criticize.
Do you read this list? We criticise each other all the
time! That's the whole point! We are striving toward a
common goal. We all make mistakes and we admit it. We don't
really CARE all that much about the mistakes we make along
the path to our goal which is to learn the language well
and to polish it and make it a wonderful thing. Glen,
however, does not tolerate criticism unless he is the one
doing it.
> I believe any unbiased review of Glen's work will find it
> to be very good Klingon (with exceptions I admit -- I've criticized a lot of
> Glen's things and he listened and made it better -- minor I'll agree, but I'm
> a Data Processing Analyst who loves language, not a linguist).
And I'm a computer systems engineer who loves language, not
a linguist. There's a wide mix here. Meanwhile, here we
have a group of highly skilled people who attempt to
cooperate, but give each other a hard time, all while
seeking a common goal. Nobody here has authority over
everybody else. I mean, Krankor has a lot of authority, but
he's never here anymore and the list has gone on quite well
without him. He will be welcome back whenever he comes, but
the list has its own life. I doubt anything could please
him more.
~mark has a lot of authority, but he's pretty gentle with
it. The hard part is getting him to actually decide things
now and then.
ghunchu'wI' puts in incredible efforts here and his skill
has become inspirational. I'll stop the name dropping and
just say that there are a lot of people here worthy of
respect who all catch hell whenever they so much as
misspell something. You make a mistake. People strongly
point it out. You give a replacement proverb and get on
with life.
It's not that way with Glen. He is the teacher. The ONLY
teacher that counts. Nobody else is allowed to approach the
level of respect that he requires. There have been positive
results of this. It indirectly started the qep'a'. It got
an article in the Wall Street Journal. Still, it does not
make those who are not seeking a hero like him very much.
I am not seeking a hero. Krankor comes close, but mostly
because he welcomes my friendship and offers as much
respect as he accepts. If I walked up to Krankor and
started talking to him faster and with more clarity than he
had, he'd likely be taken aback, but I suspect he would
laugh and relish the moment. It would be inspiration to him
to brush up his own expertise. There is very little
jealousy that I can recognize here, except by the rare
individual who appears here and intends to quickly proclaim
himself the Real Leader.
It just doesn't work in KLI. naDev juppu' maH. loQ po'
nuvpu' law'. Controbutions are welcome. Proclamations
designed to make everyone shut up and listen are not.
> Ken wrote:
> >> Sorry for getting on my soap box, but I had to say it!
>
> Mr. Martin replied:
> >My feelings exactly.
>
> So let's make this work. I'll provide protions of Glen's works and open them
> for discussion. That'd work as a learning tool. And you can rip it to
> shreds! We'll all be the better for it.
Sounds fine. I'll be surprised if Glen finds this
acceptable, but I'm quite willing to be surprised. I don't
see people, Glen included, as immutable characters. Glen
has shown consistent character traits that I do not admire,
but I fully give him credit for the ability to change.
I'll need to see signs of that change, however.
I do not seek to dig through Glen's work, but I'm certainly
willing to. I'd be more enthusiastic about the task if I
felt it were contributed by a peer than by one with a
patronizing, defensive attitude.
If they are presented as from a peer, I will welcome them
here.
charghwI'