tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 26 07:00:44 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Verb prepositional concepts

charghwI'vo':

It saddens me to see how one person can so successfully 
transform this list in such a negative way. Recently, this list 
was a very positively aimed forum nurturing beginners and a 
supportive, friendly atmosphere for experienced speakers to 
share stories and news and ideas using the warrior's tongue. In 
the last few days, it has shifted to become a very negative, 
insulting, destructive place where we exhibit the worst side of 
our personalities. 

I publicly apologize for my own participation in this shift. 
Belatedly, I am self-censoring my responses to peHruS. I stayed 
up until 3:00 AM writing detailed responses (offline, 
fortunately, so I can delete them) to his latest batch of 
messages where he explains why Okrand's definitions and examples 
do not satisfy him and gives the details on how we can improve 
the language by changing a couple definitions so that 
intransitive verbs can be used transitively, to his liking. At 
7:30 AM, I awoke deciding to delete as much as possible of my 
own responses and clean up the rest, trying to address the group 
and not peHruS, since peHruS will only use anything I say to 
sustain this negative space he controls so well, stealing all 
attention from those who contribute more positively to my own 
goals for this list. 

I want to hear more stories from pagh and ghunchu'wI'. I want to 
enjoy and celebrate Holtej's return. I want to read more of Qov's
creative challenges and good advice to beginners, and more of 
voragh's excellently selected canon to highlight a point. I 
don't want to turn beginners away with petty bickering, arguing 
points that everyone but peHruS seems to already understand.

I do want to see more Klingon text written by peHruS. It is by 
far the most positive contribution he makes, until he makes a 
mistake and then justifies it with another all-English post 
telling us about how certain words need to be redefined or how 
certain grammatical constructions Okrand has never used or 
described need to be added to the language.

I'm tired of insulting peHruS and I'm tired of reading OTHER 
people insult peHruS and even more than I'm tired of the recent 
spam the list has had to endure, I'm REALLY tired of peHruS 
grabbing the attention of the list, diverting it from these far 
more meaningful and productive discussions and offerings. I 
cannot believe that he does this in order to convince anyone of 
anything, since he repeats arguments he has been using for years 
and has never gotten a positive response for it. 

I honestly believe it is a misguided and successful attempt to 
get attention. I wish there were somewhere else he could get it 
so this list could get back to the happy space it was in before 
this recent pile of messages about modifying Okrand's 
definitions to satisfy what peHruS sees as a shortcoming in the 
language. In a past peHruS-centric storm of messages, SuStel 
awoke me to my participation in this emotionally sick 
phenominon, but this time, I see that he, too, has been sucked 
into it. I suspect he will feel some relief to hear someone 
other than himself be the one to plead: "Please just stop it."

I will post one cleaned up argument to peHruS's point, less 
aimed at him than to any beginner who might be swayed toward his 
argument (though I've been relieved so far to see that even the 
less experienced participants here seem to see through peHruS's 
very weak pseudo-arguments).

I had previously written:

> < The point is that we work with the best information we have.
>  This begins with the definition in TKD or KGT and is often
>  enhanced by other canon. We do NOT just decide as individuals
>  that a definition that appears to be intransitive can,
>  independant from anything from Okrand, be modified to our
>  liking in order to be used transitively with an object of our
>  choosing.

peHruS responds:
  
> I agree wholeheartedly.  For this reason, I had already admitted that {jeS}
> works fine as glossed, "participate," not "participate [in]".
> 
> Then I started wondering aloud on this listserv about {qIm}, since it really
> would work better if TKD is "incomplete" and the gloss should have been "pay
> attention to".

Look at these two paragraphs above. In one, peHruS gives 
Okrand permission to define a word, with peHruS acting as 
arbitor to say, "Yes, this word satisfies me as Okrand defined 
it, so I, claiming some mysterious source of authority on the 
Klingon language which is higher than that of the man who 
created it, will deem it worthy as it stands. Meanwhile, I do 
not feel so charitable towards {qIm}. No. {qIm} needs some work. 
I, peHruS, will improve this definition with my own hand and the 
world of Klingonists should thank me for it."

Beginners: Please note that no one is thanking him for it. Our 
mission here is to learn how to use the materials Okrand has 
given us, not to take the language from Okrand and make it our 
own. We can't change a definition of a word to suit our 
preferences, though if we see that Okrand has expanded or 
modified the meaning of a word in his writings, we do add those 
changes to our understanding of the language.

charghwI'

Back to archive top level