tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 09 13:48:12 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
no applause, just throw money
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: no applause, just throw money
- Date: Wed, 10 Aug 94 01:44:26 EDT
>charghwI'vo':
>Guido, welcome back. I've missed your insight. Meanwhile, this
>time, when I looked into TKD to find the evidence supporting
>your argument, I found instead language that suggests that you
>are going overboard with very little substance behind you.
>> >Althought the words that precede the rest of the sentence *usually* take
>> >a type 5, it says right there in the KD that they do not HAVE to. True,
>> >this may only be included because of the special cases of naDev, pa',
>> >etc... but my 'instincts' say this isn't so. Yeah, I know 'instincts'
>> >don't count for squat, but I think this would be soemthing worth
>> researching/looking into.
>>
>> DujlIj yIlachHa'Qo' 'ej yIvuvtaH. Of course your instincts count.
Instincts
>> have everything to do with how languages are used.
>>
>> But the above paragraph of trI'Qal I am very much glad for. You people are
>> *FINALLY* realizing what I've been screaming for months!!! {-Daq} is not
>> necessary half the times you use it. In fact in TKD 3.3.5 in the part on
the
>> locative it states quite clearly that {-Daq} when used with verbs of
motion
>> is redundant.
>Excuse me, but it says," There are a few verbs whose meanings
>include locative notions, such as ghoS APPROACH, PROCEED. The
>locative suffix need not be used on nouns which are the objects
>of such verbs." This is a long shot from your suggestion that
>all verbs of motion qualify. Evidence against your argument are
>staring you right in the face. Notice the example {pa'Daq
>yIjaH}. One would think that if ever there was a verb of
>motion, {jaH} would be that verb.
Well, here, you see, {-Daq} is used to disambiguate. {pa'} could mean also
"there" but of course {pa'Daq} can only mean "to the room". Otherwise....
>Furthermore, even if you were right on this unjustifiable
>expansion of the class of verbs that imply locative objects,
>and you are not, then you would not have license to be so
>condescending in your criticism of everyone, given, "If the
>locative suffix is used with such verbs, the resulting sentence
>is somewhat redundant, but not out-and-out wrong."
>So lighten up a little, okay?
ok. i'm sorry, guys. really i am. i don't know what came over me. i must've
had one of those mt.dew highs. i felt the same way as i did in paris after
they spiked my cola, or so i thought.
>> For some reason I can't hope to ever know, no one seems to
>> realize this until *I* point it out to them. {ghoS} is transitive! OK? Say
it
>> with me 3000 times until it's in your head. {Duj vIghoS} is entirely
>> acceptable. The {-Daq} in {DujDaq jIghoS} is as redundant as the {-pu'} in
>> {qIpchuq puqpu'}.
>While this is true, it is also true that it is not WRONG to use
>the {-Daq} in the first example or the {-pu'} in the second.
>You are getting very worked up and patronizing over a very weak
argument.
ok. fine. i'm just saying that Klingons don't like to be redundant. at least
the Klingons i know.
>> Realize also that virtually all verbs of motion are like
>> this:
>>
>> {qach vIqet. tengchaH wIpaw. Sajraj boyIt.}
>This is where you stepped off into fantasyland. There is
>nothing in TKD that substantiates that statement. If you have
>some other canon to point to, I could believe that perhaps
>Okrand reconsidered his statements in TKD and expanded on them
>in this way, but there is no language in TKD that suggests that
>all verbs of motion are in the set of verbs referred to above.
>He simply tells you that {ghoS} is such a verb and that there
>are a small group of others, and he doesn't tell you which
>ones. Meanwhile, {ghoS} is such an obviously exceptional word,
>given only its definition: "approach, go away from, proceed,
>come, follow (a course)". If that doesn't clue you in to the
>idea that there is something unusual about this verb that might
>set it apart from other verbs of motion with definitions like
>"go", "walk", "jog, run", etc. then, gee, Guido, just exactly
>who is being dense here?
look, guys. today i've been scratched eight times by my girlfriendqoq while
her friends were treating me like dirt. plus just to rub it in.. oh never
mind. you don't care. anyways, i really don't know who wrote all this stuff.
it wasn't me. it was some twisted fiendish alternate personality of mine
which developed as a result of that one morbid little incident i experienced
in my infancy involving a veg-o-matic...
>> There's just no room to argue.
>Right.
>> It's there in TKD.
>Take a closer look. Cite the examples that back you up.
>> Plus, just to emphasize my
>> point, {-Daq} on {pa'} (when it means "thereabouts"), {Dat}, and {naDev}
is
>> illegal.
>I actually think this WEAKENS your argument, because if it were
>true that you can never use {-Daq} with an object of a verb of
>motion, and that there is always an implied {-Daq} in words
>like {pa'} (when it means "thereabouts"), {Dat}, and {naDev},
>then you could never use these nouns as objects of verbs of
>motion. You could not say, {naDev yIghoS} "Come here," because
>you absolutely cannot use a noun with {-Daq} with {ghoS} and
>there is an implied {-Daq} in {naDev}. This is silly.
oh blood! i never said "don't use {-Daq}", i just said it's redundant. ok
>> I would also venture that it's illegal on {vogh}, but don't bet the
>> mortgage on it.
>I would offer a lot more support for suggesting that {vogh}
>"somewhere" is grammatically identical to {naDev} "here" than I
>can offer to this weak idea that all verbs of motion are
>grammatically identical to {ghuS}.
thanQ
>> >[deletions for brevity]
[more deletions for brevity]
>>
>> Yeah yeah. It doesn't conform to perfect logic, but then.. I feel quite
>> acceptant of {Hol wIja'chuq}. It's rather colloquial (think of it, Klingon
>> slang now!), but it makes perfect sense to even novices in the language. I
>> personally find it more natural than the stiff {maja'chuqtaHvIS Hol wIqel}
or
>> some such. You see, if an American goes, "Lugnuts? We ain't got no more
>> lugnuts!", he/she/it is in no danger of confusing anyone. You see,
languages
>> work by what people understand. They most certainly do not have to conform
to
>> total logic, as any natural language will demonstrate in an instant.
>This is said by the same person who just raged at the
>suggestion that someone might place {-Daq} on a noun that is
>being used locatively and chastized us for daring to actually
>place a plural suffix on a noun when it is used plurally.
>Hello? Are you listening to yourself? It sounds to me like you
>are less interested in improving the useage of the language
>than you are in being the arbitor of what is right and what is
>wrong. When YOU want to be strict, we should all follow the
>rules exactly as you see them, and when YOU want to be lax, we
>should all back off and let bad grammar go unchecked.
>Too much ego, my friend. You are just back from vacation. Chill
>out. Relax. You are among friends here and we are not all
>children who do not know the language as well as you do.
i never said that. if anyone was being childish it was ME, that silly ol'
guido person. ok. let me struggle to clarify my views. i wish for everyone to
write Klingon naturally. the whole anti{-Daq} business came from
GlenProechel, in whose InterstellarLanguageSchool Primer Textbook he stated
that {ghoS} is always intransitive. he said this in a book for teaching the
language, for cryin out loud. it got me riled up. i apologize.
>> >--HoD trI'Qal
>> > tlhwD lIy So'
>>
>> Yes trI'Qaloy, your instincts do count for squat. *?*
>>
>>
>> Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos
>>
>> (that's guido with a capital G for God it's such a thrill to be me!!!!!!)*
>Yeah, I kinda got that feeling. Meanwhile, the joy of
>experiencing your ego in the first person should not require a
>cost to similar joys experienced by others.
whoa. thanQ for putting me in my place. all joking aside, i have one helluva
inferiority complex. i despise egotism and that i just had some sort of case
where i was high off my own self or something crazy like that makes me feel
even lower than i normally do. i think i'll just slink away for a few days
here. now charghwI', being the true proud Klingon that he most certainly is,
will probably jump all over my sorry self for being such a HemHa'wI'. don't
mind me. i may be smart, but i have yet to figger out just where the hell my
place is in the world. i thought it was here, but...
>charghwI'
guido*..