tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 27 09:51:34 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: use and purpose of this list.
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Alan Anderson wrote:
> Would you like to know what I think the real problem is? It's that you
> keep comparing and contrasting Klingon with other languages, with no
> obvious reason except to point out how Klingon is somehow weak, incomplete,
> or otherwise inferior. When you ask questions, you dismiss the answers you
> don't like. And you expect those making a serious effort to become fluent
> in Klingon to embrace your repeated put-downs? wejpuH.
I think there are two problems, and "you're both wrong".
Comparing Klingon to other languages is absolutely a useful exercise.
There have been numerous examples on this list in the past where Klingon
was compared to existing languages -- for the purposes of understanding
syntactical constructions. The classic example is the discussion that
always comes up around the fact that Klingon has aspect but no tense. By
simply saying that, you're comparing Klingon with another language.
That said, I do think that there are some of us that do often put forth
these comparisons as a way of saying "I think Klingon needs to be extended
to do this" or "I think there needs to be a consistent way to replicate
this kind of construction in Klingon". Quite often, we do trap ourselves
in the false logic that, "if language A can do it, why can't language B?"
Sociologically, it's probably part of our heritage now. We're living in a
time where "bigger, better, faster" is an expectation. So here we have an
artificially constructed language -- why *shouldn't* it have all the bells
and whistles? If Microsoft announced that they were going to release a
brand new Windows OS, but without support for a mouse, people would never
buy it. There's an ingrained belief among many of us that, if we are
going to choose a "product", we want one that "does it all". Klingon
definitely does not fit that bill, so some of us approach it from the
perspective of "can we improve it?" This is likely also the core reason
why we have the two camps of "let's extend the language" and "let's stay
true to the 'real' Klingon of Marc Okrand".
Now, the flip side. You don't get off unscathed. :) I've said this MANY
times before, and it's almost always in response to the *same* handful of
people on this list. Some of you 'experts' are so wrapped up in your
authority as such, that you definitely have a running pattern of coming
across very brusque whenever someone who is NOT an "expert" posits
something you disagree with. Instead of responding with insightful
comments and logical explanations for disagreement, you often resort to
this kind of "tough guy" behavior, pushing your views on the list by
merely bullying people into submission (or into leaving). For example:
> tlhIngan Hol Dajatlhqu'Qo'chugh...vaj bIjatlh 'e' yImev.
As has been discussed before, this list is for either speaking IN Klingon,
or speaking ABOUT Klingon. You are out of line to tell anyone not to
speak on this list just because they're not doing it in Klingon,
particularly if they are at least speaking *about* the language.
If you don't agree with something someone says, defend your position.
Intellectual disagreement is a very constructive thing. Telling people to
shut up just because they have different goals and views as your own is
not at all constructive.
maghojmeH batlh peghoH! maQeHchoHmeH neH batlhHa' peghoHQo'.
...Paul
** Have a question that reality just can't answer? **
** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
"Hell, there are no rules here -- we're trying
to accomplish something." -- Thomas Edison
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}