tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 23 19:43:50 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: RE: RE: An offer you shouldn't refuse!

----------
From: 	[email protected] on behalf of William H. Martin
Sent: 	Wednesday, August 21, 1996 9:57 PM
To: 	Multiple recipients of list
Subject: 	Re: RE: RE: An offer you shouldn't refuse!

>Glen offered to sell someone else's 
>goods on consignment. He then sold the goods and kept all 
>the money... 
>That REALLY hurt his image here. 

I recently got a personal EMAIL from David Barron on this issue.  Such 
practices are definitely not right or good for anyone's image.  I can not or 
would not justify these actions.  I am still trying to piece the incident 
together and will try to make amends as best I can.  

William H. Martin also responded to additional words which Glen proposed:

>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.

My HolQeD's start at 3.1.  I spoke with him on these and he said they are 
suggestions, but he doesn't seem to be teaching them to his students.  But 
Alan Anderson responded on
Wednesday, August 21, 1996 11:37 PM:

>>In Glen's article "Extending Klingon Kinship Terms" in HolQeD 2:3, he
>>proposed using the particle {-nI'} as a generic "kinship" suffix.  It
>>was actually put a bit more strongly than a mere proposal:

  >>"{puqnI'} is clearly *grandchild*..."

>>I'm sorry, but it's far from clear to *me* that this is the case.  He
>>also said that {vavnI''a'} is "the only possible choice" to translate
>>"great grandfather", and {loDnI''a'} could be "cousin" -- wejpuH.

>>The entire article is based on the presumption that we can deduce the
>>word formation rules by analyzing a *very* few examples (four, in this
>>case), and generalizing to create new vocabulary.  I disagree strongly
>>with this position.

Actually I think the "grand child" angle is quite good (that cousin part is 
another matter though).  On this list I've argued for (and been "chastened" 
for) taking such liberties myself.  I believe that, even though the TKD only 
gives a few examples, it invites us to make use of the language:

    "It is not possible, in a brief guide such as this, to describe the 
grammar of
    Klingon completely.  What follows is only a sketch or outline of Klingon 
grammar.
   Although a good many of the fine points are not covered, the sketch will 
allow the 
   student of Klingon to figure out what a Klingon is saying and to respond in 
an 
   intelligible, though somewhat brutish, manner.  Most Klingons will never 
know the 
   difference."
           Page  18  of The Klingon Dictionary.

Alan Anderson also wrote on Wednesday, August 21, 1996 11:37 PM:

>>It's perhaps worse because the "new vocabulary" proposed is completely
>>unnecessary.

Glen isn't the only one who can be dogmatic (as I've seen over and over again 
on this list).  Trying to constantly "explain" Terran words with "phrases" 
gets really tedious and verbose.  If a Klingon sees a common word with a 
suffix such as <-nI'> behind it, a commonality to the word he knows should 
seem make sense.  VERBOSE doesn't seem to be the Klingon way as we can see 
with the use of Clipped Klingon in everyday use, not just in Military 
situations.  Even using <-ghach> on a bare stem is not "forbidden" just 
"marked".  I really question the validity of the strictness placed on Klingon 
speakers.  I love the intellectual banter and I'm learning much, but I'm 
afraid I'll never make the KLI grades.


Ken worte:
>> 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.
 
>William H. Martin also wrote:
>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.

I like Alan Anderson's response (Re: RE: An offer you shouldn't refuse!) on 
Wednesday, August 21, 1996 12:30 PM. I won't restate it here though.
 

>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.

Perhaps this is a little BOLD, but it seems that in the Adendum we got more 
"verbs as nouns" and other later works.  I would defer this to page 18 of the 
TKD as well.


Ken wrote:
>>  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.

William H. Martin also wrote:
>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} 
f>or those times when a verb had a verbal suffix. The rest 
>of the time, just use the verb as a noun.

I'm sorry, I need to be sure I understand.  I am talking about the use of 
<-ghach> as <-tion / -ness> that makes a "noun".  I'll try and find the 
article, because I'm not sure what your arguing.

William H. Martin also wrote:
>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.

Yes, but it just seems soooooooo  KLINGON!

William H. Martin also wrote:
>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.

I'm really not being sarcastic, but it just seems soooooooo  KLINGON!

William H. Martin also wrote:
>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 would argure that you are justified in your stand and I would not want to 
try and make you any different.  But there is the basic differences and when 
it becomes a fundamental difference it will stay that way.  In this case there 
is a man (Dr. Okrand) who can make both sides look bad by any decision he 
makes.  That's what makes this different than other types of fundamentally 
diverse positions.  From what I've seen come from the "Good Doctor", I'd much 
rather take Glen's approach.

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.

I'd rather not touch this.

William H. Martin also wrote:
>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.

I can't totally disagree with you on his approach.  A slower pace would be 
better and definitely with a better presentation, but, as I've said earlier, 
his approach is not that far out in left field.

William H. Martin also wrote:
>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.

I want to see more stuff and while I was impressed with the KLI Hamlet it 
wasn't perfect and too "artsy" oriented for me.  I really don't think it 
warrented that extra two years.  I'll never be a great Klingon speaker (I'll 
be happy with being fair).  I just don't have that kind or time or aptitude 
(or inclination).

I'm going to skip past some of Mr. Martin's response, because it is pretty 
redundant to the above.  This is not a criticism.  I just feel I'd be 
repeating myself and this has gotten a bit lengthy already.  I would welcome 
personal EMAIL on this rather than continue on this list.  For me the feedback 
was most beneficial, but Donald E. Vick makes a valid point.  

William H. Martin goes on to say:
>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.

I don't feel responsible for Glen, but I am a member of the ILS and I want to 
see it continue fairly to those it associates with.  While Glen is away at his 
Russian mission, I will be helping him fulfill his obligations of the ILS.
  
William H. Martin wrote:
>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.

I think that Glen's actions in the past were somewhat questionable, but he is 
not malicious.  Inept at time over protocal, organization, and manners, but 
not intentionally bad.  I did not agree with a few (very few) points of his 
critique of the KLI Hamlet, but the points he brought up on "readibility" are 
valid, despite the focus of the iambic pentameter (which seems strange since 
Klingon is based on "3").

William H. Martin wrote:
>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.

Worship and admiration are not the same.  I may only have a college degree (BA 
philosophy -- minors in Religion, Theology, Psychology), but I am intellegent 
enough to think for myself and I have never followed anyone blindly.

Back to archive top level