tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 20 20:28:17 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Once more into the ship in which I fled
- From: McArdle <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Once more into the ship in which I fled
- Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1245554797; bh=IqOaXyGa4lHn9vZuoTH6ZUZ+dgCJR7yOWppz+Asq/4Q=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=eAV21E1ZNCURmAOjzkD4Rhah1xmnJoBGYMDDW6SuMMsRdwDxrG8wMqgIB5PxYRLm7NVejaQWrJokGOxnYg7GBaYbG7EEzbma7v7xYmtYrO5eymHL42IijcAiIgz29NMxYbSkSQO3IhN1H/gwhGX5SDwXnnMK4/5tq6Q1EUcnsVU=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=pGT5o7HPkptV9BeG3/eJKoJg2jOkgNHLf6ez5HCcVeZDJHuq3knCyRJIxZYwGAbYG9+TqC96LQaSVtutq6AGsRtFT4CP7a1ThU1bacCfkScOnqExIEAiERGRkJyrZLz7YAjdgMmkKtQSSV+hLPMYdTN9Yd3GQeFEjNnlY6YFOdo=;
The only thing I can say about this was that I wasn't trying to be disrespectful, authoritarian or presumptuous. If what I wrote came off that way, it's probably because (or, perhaps, "I hope it's because . . .") I was trying to be clear and thorough. I will admit to some enthusiasm for the "resumptive pronoun" idea itself, but not to a desire for acknowledgement of "obvious genius and superior insight". I certainly recognize that only MO has the authority to add features to the language, but I thought it would be interesting to have a discussion with well-informed people about what they thought of the idea, how well it might fit in with known principles of Klingon grammar, whether it conflicts with canon (an area where I am particularly ill-informed), and so on. The last thing I wanted to do was cause offense.
Hey, guys, here's this cool idea. Can we talk about it?
mI'qey
--- On Sat, 6/20/09, Doq <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Doq <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Once more into the ship in which I fled
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Saturday, June 20, 2009, 5:22 PM
> Weighing in late on this one...
>
> The idea is interesting. If you'd like to discuss it as an
> interesting
> idea, presenting it in a less presumptive style would
> probably have
> been more successful.
>
> Presenting it in a lengthy, well-reasoned, but
> excessively
> authoritarian style makes it seem like you wish to either
> have the
> idea accepted whole cloth without modification, or you are
> ready for a
> flame-fest.
>
> Holtej has more than a history in this group. He has a
> very
> respectful, unassuming attitude. When he speaks, he
> actually does seek
> discussion more than either "respect for his obvious genius
> and
> superior insight" or a fight.
>
> I respect his diplomacy. He is far better at it than I am.
> I aspire to
> improve toward his superior example.
>
> Meanwhile, it is quite true that your idea has no authority
> behind it.
> Okrand could make it true with a wave of his magic wand,
> like the word
> {'I'}. Or not. The rest of us can't.
>
> People who try to append the grammar and usurp Okrand's
> position as
> the single authority over it have come and gone through the
> years on
> this list. For the most part, they don't last. Those who
> remain, for
> the most part, have fun with the language and accept the
> grammar as it
> is given to us.
>
> Also, as it has been pointed out, you are fixing something
> that isn't
> broken. We can express the ideas you are trying to
> translate with more
> than one sentence. This is quite normal in Klingon, as
> Okrand said in
> the original description of the grammar in the first
> version of TKD.
> It's quite normal to repeat words in Klingon where you
> wouldn't in
> English, and to translate single, complex sentences in
> English into
> multiple simpler ones in Klingon.
>
> Your idea is interesting in a meta-Klingon sort of way, but
> it will
> not become an accepted grammatical construction until
> Okrand
> explicitly accepts it. Likely, he would not do so unless he
> either
> felt a need to expand the grammar beyond his current
> description of it
> (ghaytanHa') or if it were presented to him in a way that
> appealed to
> him.
>
> Unfortunately for you, the idea isn't funny in a way that
> fits the
> sense of humor that dominates much of Okrand's approach to
> Klingon. He
> had fun making up this language. He has had a lot of fun
> appending it.
> Just look at his words for "birds" of various kinds. He
> added piloting
> terms out of respect for the loyalty that one particular
> pilot had
> shown to the language. It was a friendly thing to do.
>
> Okrand is friendly and witty. He's not authoritarian and
> doesn't have
> a lot of interest in those who approach the language in
> an
> authoritarian way. He did this to have fun and to offer
> that fun to
> others. Check out any of his interviews (like the radio
> show where his
> translation of the Klingon word for "goodbye" was the sound
> of his
> chair scraping the floor as he pulled it back, stood up and
> walked
> away).
>
> He probably made a few bucks while he was at it, none of
> which were
> unearned.
>
> Enjoy the language. Don't try to own part of it. Paramount
> has lawyers
> who don't like that, either.
>
> Lighten up. This isn't a joust. It's a cooperative
> venture.
>
> Doq
>
> On Jun 20, 2009, at 4:35 PM, McArdle wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, David Trimboli <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: David Trimboli <[email protected]>
> >> Subject: Re: Once more into the ship in which I
> fled
> >> To: [email protected]
> >> Date: Saturday, June 20, 2009, 9:13 AM
> >> McArdle wrote:
> >>>
> >>> That strikes me as less a solution than a
> >> rationalization for not
> >>> finding a solution.
> >>
> >> No, it's a solution which says that Klingon
> doesn't do what
> >> you're
> >> asking at all, or at least if there's a way it is
> unknown
> >> and probably
> >> unknowable without input from Okrand.
> >>
> >
> > In its own way, this is fascinating. The
> responses to my suggestion
> > have mostly clustered around "you're wasting your time
> with this."
> > The last time this topic was raised (by Holtej last
> October), there
> > were a number of responses discussing the merits of
> his proposal,
> > and none at all suggesting that the whole discussion
> was pointless.
> > You yourself mentioned that MO hadn't found a way to
> solve the
> > problem, but went on to leave the door open by adding
> "I don't think
> > that comes
> > directly from Maltz, however." I took this as an
> indication that
> > the question was still open and further discussion
> might be
> > warranted (or, at the very least, not actively
> rebuffed).
> >
> > I understand that Holtej has a history and a standing
> with the group
> > that I don't, but still the difference in the
> responses is curious.
> >
> > Qapla'
> >
> > mI'qey
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>