tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Aug 31 20:03:51 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
-mey/-pu' (was: Re: KLBC: sources)
- From: [email protected] (HoD trI'Qal)
- Subject: -mey/-pu' (was: Re: KLBC: sources)
- Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 23:04:41 -0400
At 02:29 PM 8/26/96 -0700, William H. Martin wrote:
>
>On Sun, 25 Aug 1996 10:46:01 -0700 HoD trI'Qal
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> At 04:14 PM 8/22/96 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>> >qaSDI' 96-08-22 01:37:04 EDT, jatlh trI'Qal:
>> >
>> >> Since "official sources"
>> >> cannot speak, we want <bIH>.
>> >
>> >Oh, yeah? What about our official source for {'I'} and {nughI'}?!? {{:-D
>> >
>> >SuStel
>> >Stardate 96644.4
>>
>> That's one source. This is sort of like the arguement about <qorDu'>
>> ("family").
>
>Not quite.
>
>> Once, long ago, someone put a "able to speak" suffix on <qarDu'>, which was
>> flagged as incorrect by the BG (it was so long ago, I don't even remember
>> who posted, or who was BG at the time...
>
>As I remember it, either Krankor spoke up or was cited on it.
>
>> for all I know, it could have been
>> *me*!). This brought forth a debate... because, although all the member of
>> a family are capable of speech, a *family* is not, although we often (in
>> english, at any rate) talk like the do. If I am not mis-using my terms,
>> that is a form of personification.
>
>No problem. But "family" is a group word and when you speak of a
>family, you speak of a group. "Source"/{Hal} is not a group
>word, any more than {nuv} is a group word. If sources refers to
>people, then {Halpu'} is exactly as appropriate as {nuvpu'}. Are
>you suggesting we should be using {nuvmey} because any time a
>speaking entity is plural they become unable to speak?
Okay, so it wasn't the BEST analogy.
The point I was trying to make was that not all the "sources" mentioned were
capable of speech, so throwing a -pu' on there wasn't necessarily correct.
My analogy to <qorDu'> was bad, for the reason you said.
Come to think of it, since we don't know how to treat plurals between
speach-capable and non-speech-capable, we don't know if -mey is correct,
either.
I'm certainly not going to let ANYONE tell a beginner they are wrong in such
a case, and, in the absence of canon to the contrary, I will stand by my
defense of what the beginner origianally posted...
...joke or not, SuStel (I know in another post, he said he was joking, but
see where you went with your joke? {{:) )
>> A "family" does not speak, although it's members do. Same thing for a
>> "council". Same thing for "High Command". Same thing for "sources". {{:)
>
>True, but these are all group names. The noun is singular and
>treated grammatically as singular, grouping together speaking
>entities. {Halpu'}, however is not a group name. It is a plural
>form of a singular noun, which may be capable of speech or not,
>depending on the specific case. In this case, the joke was that
>a couple of our sources are people, like Krankor as the source
>of {nughI'}, ~mark as the source of {'I'} and r'Hull as the
>source of our new meaning for {ngev}.
The original question was "What are the official souces for the Klingon
Language?"
The person posting used -mey, and SuStel said it was incorrect, and should
have been -pu'.
Not all our sources CAN speak.
>> I can also present to you that many of our sources are not capable of
>> speech, even though they all derive from that "one" source: TKD, TKW, CK,
>> PK, etc.
>
>Except for the three sources from qep'a', whose contributions
>became canon when Okrand said so, with a wave of his magic wand.
See same point as above.
>> Therefore, using <bIH> instead of <chaH> is correct. :)
>
>Not necessarily. Sorry if I seem to be picking on you. I really
>don't mean to. I like you and stuff. It's just these sweeping
>statements that bring on the cringe and the insatiable urge to
>type a reply...
You have caught me a few times "with my pants down", charghwI'. I'm not
perfect, and I haven't been on the list for a while, so I have been "out of
the loop". I don't mind having a watchdog or two... it keeps me on my toes.
I just think you are stretching it in this case.
>> Sorry to drill this into the ground, but I feel an obligation to make sure
>> ANYTHING under the KLBC Header is fully and completely explained in detail.
>> It's one of my "faults" that (I think) helps me be a better BG. {{:)
>
>When you are right, it is a good trait. When most probably
>mistaken, it adds fuel to the response.
I don't think I was mistaken. As BG, I have always accepted BOTH sides of
any issue, or the most "conservative" approach. I am not going to let
someone say a beginner is incorrect with how they used a structure, just
because this "corrector" happen to believe the other side of the debated
topic, unless the list in general has come to a consensus, or we have clear
canon to support it.
As for adding feul to the response, that's your problem, not mine. I
explain things as clearly as I can, as I understand them, and sometimes I do
it into the ground... because I would rather give a lot of examples up
front, and have my explainations ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, so everyone can see where
I am coming from, than to spend weeks sending email later to clear it up.
Perhpas it is a trace of ego, but I think my habit of taking the time to
explain things into the ground, and work them through, step-by-step is one
of the reasons I am a good BG (not to say anyone else wasn't!)... or so I
have been told in some posts and some private email, and a few times on the
MUSH already. If my extended explainations are making you angrier, then
that's something you have to deal with, not me. I certainly don't make my
posts for the whole point of pissing off any one particular person. {{:)
I'm trying to be the best BG I possibly can, and if you don't like how I am
doing it, send it to me in private email, instead of flaming me all over the
list.
BTW, if that isn't what you meant by "adding feul to the fire", then please
use a better phrase, because that is what I understood it to be, and I
answer 'em as I see 'em ('cause teha's the only way I can).
That may sound a bit "flamy" in return... it really isn't meant that way...
Sorry if I seem to be picking on you. I really don't mean to. I like you and
stuff. It's just these sweeping criticisms that don't look at the original
questions that bring on the cringe and the insatiable urge to type a reply...
{{:)
Are we done, now? {{:)
>charghwI'
--tQ, who just KNOWS that this letter is gonna be taken the wrong way, but
owel...
---
HoD trI'Qal, tlhIngan wo' Duj lIy So' ra'wI'
Captain T'rkal, Commander IKV Hidden Comet
Klingon speaker and net junkie!
HaghtaHbogh tlhIngan yIvoqQo'! toH... qatlh HaghtaH Qanqor HoD???
monlI'bogh tlhInganbe' yIvoqQo'! SoHvaD monlI' trI'Qal...