tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 25 10:59:10 2010

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Healthy debate

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv ([email protected]) 

This has become more of a confrontation than I wanted. I apologize for inadvertently setting that mood. It's a habit I apparently can't break.

I was one of the attendees at qep'a' wa'DIch; a founding member of the KLI. I've interviewed Okrand, myself. As a matter of honor, I set standards for my own behavior as a temporary liaison between Okrand and the community at large in that interview. I worked hard at making sure that I was representing the community more than myself when I did that interview, setting aside my opinions and preferences in terms of outcome from the interview to, as much as possible, create (within the limited scope of the interview) an objective, clear, communicative link between Okrand and the community, giving everyone equal and timely access to the information given. After writing up the interview, but before publication, I also realized that there were some vague points that would be better to clarify before serving the community, so I got back to him and we worked out his choice of wording for the final publication.

I'm delighted that Okrand is communicating with others in the community. I do feel a bit disappointed in the way this is being handled. Then again, my standards are not universal and I have no basis for expecting anyone else to feel the level of obligation I felt when it was my turn to do this.

The simple truth is, you don't need to live up to my standards. There's plenty of support here for your approach, and not much for mine. Feel free of my disappointment. It is meaningless noise.

On the point of a monastery as a building, I've always thought of a monastery as more of a purpose-focused village that would have a dormitory for the monks, a chapel, a kitchen (definitely a separate building because of the fire hazard), a bakery, a vineyard and a wine cellar, a dining hall, a place for the care of animals and other structures to serve the daily lives of those who fulfill the mission of the community. Reading Okrand's description, I would expect it to be a complex of buildings or the community of people living in it, or the organizational structure or culture or society of those people.

I'd take my current sense of a monastic community and expand it to include other kinds of missions than religious ones, since Okrand suggests that. Perhaps Klingons might have similar institutions for the refining and perpetuation of martial arts, or of other scholarly traditions. The word might even stretch far enough to include permanent military camps. Where is the boundary, if religion is not the defining point? And does this imply all male members as is typically the case with a monastery? Is there an equivalent of a nunnery? Does this word already include an all-female community? Does it cover communities that include both sexes?

There's a lot we don't know about this word. Likely, it has something to do with community, and likely, its meaning extends beyond religious boundaries. Maybe it has a lot to do with a building or a complex of buildings. Or not.

You asked for a word, then got an answer that didn't perfectly fit your question, but you lack the curiosity to follow up on the details of the difference. You wanted the Klingon word for "monastery". You got a word, but the description rambled a bit and included something about not being limited to religion and it included the word "community", even though you were asking a question about a building. But you consider your question to be more important than the details of the answer, and in your opinion, your question was answered, so you are done with it. {ghIn} is a building. Period.

It's like you asked for the Klingon word for "yellow" and someone answered {SuD} with some vague mumblings about it also describing a couple of other colors, but you don't care. You asked for "yellow" and so {SuD} means "yellow" and you are done with it.

So, I'm a little disappointed that the details (beyond your unconfirmed opinion) of exactly what this word means or can mean remains so vague without you having much interest in following up on it, lest the answer not agree with what you want it to mean. As the person who gave Okrand his first consolidated list of his own words, and as the former creator and maintainer of the New Words List at the KLI, I regret that we don't have a clearer definition that would both fit the gloss format of the rest of the word list and include the specific differences between this "not just religion" and "community" word from the English word "monastery".

But again, my disappointment is meaningless noise. I'm a noisy person. That's why I stopped maintaining the New Words list. I get more love elsewhere than here. Why hold such standards of service to a group that doesn't feel any interest in such standards? What difference does it make if we don't have one common reference point for our hundreds of personally maintained dictionaries? Certainly, someone else could take over editing the list, since my contributions aren't really respected much here. I've long welcomed having someone else do it for a few years, even if not as long as I did.

Here, I get conflict. Apparently, I create it out of nothing for no reason with anybody available to conflict with. Sometimes, it's complicated being sentient.

Carry on. I'll try to quite down the noise for an undetermined amount of time. I don't have this problem in other contexts, but here, it's cyclic and unavoidable, and obviously my fault. Of all people, why should *I* care about new words?

lojmIt tI'wI'nuv

On Dec 25, 2010, at 10:47 AM, Lieven Litaer wrote:

> Hi lojmIt,
> 
> in one point I agree completely with your anger: we speak way too much 
> about Klingon, instead of speaking IN Klingon.
> 
> What concerns my distribution of the new words, Voragh said it perfectly:
> 
> <<<<
> This way we can thoroughly discuss each new word and keep the threads 
> separate.  If Quvar had posted them all at once, you wouldn't be able to 
> keep track of which one being discussed.
>>>>> 
> 
> By the way, I've been on this list for thirteen years now, and I believe 
> I am familiar with the use of this list.
> 
> ja' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
>> The question is, who did Okrand write the message for?
> 
> You really asked for it, so I answer your question. It was Marc Okrand 
> who asked me if any of the students at the German qepHom wanted to know 
> anything new from Maltz. I gave him a list of questions which he 
> answered partially to publish at the qepHom, for the qepHom.
> 
>> Is it being handled as if we were the intended recipients?
>> Or is it being owned by the single recipient who is using
>> it for his own entertainment value?
> 
> I could it just have printed out and hang it on the wall in my kitchen. 
> That would be my personal entertainment.
> 
>> But I apologize for bringing it up. I spoke as if out of
>> concern for a community and its common property. I keep forgetting
>> that we aren't a community.
> 
> Talking about community: Are you a member of the KLI?
> 
>> jImevnIS.
> 
> bIlugh. wo'rIv tlhIngan Hol mu'tlhegh yIqaw: <bIjatlh 'e' yImev. yItlhutlh.>
> 
> PS: reH yIqawtaH: chaq QeHchoHlu', 'ach juppu' maHtaH.
> 
> Quvar.
> 
> 
>

Back to archive top level