tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 28 14:01:44 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
ghoHlaw'taH ghu Doy'
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: ghoHlaw'taH ghu Doy'
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 94 01:57:43 EDT
There are two options. Either I could flame trI'Qal back and start a war, not
accomplishing much of any worth, which many people who know me will find to
be a familiar phenomenon with me, or I could reason level-headedly, despite
the fact that it seems my reasoning never makes much sense anymore. I've been
getting flamed enough recently for expressing my opinions that it seems I may
have to reanalyse myself. What happened to me in Europe?
ghoHchuqtaH ghuy'Do trI'Qal je:
[...]
G:
>> >> There's just no room to argue. It's there in TKD. Plus, just to
emphasize
>> my
>> >> point, {-Daq} on {pa'} (when it means "thereabouts"), {Dat}, and
{naDev}
>> is
>> >> illegal. I would also venture that it's illegal on {vogh}, but don't
bet
>> the
>> >> mortgage on it.
>>
TQ:
>> >You are absolutely right; those words cannot take -Daq. I wouldn't bet
>> >on <vogh>, either. Until we get a specific example, I would still -Daq
it.
>>
G:
>> Wellllll, I dunno. We both agree that the issue of whether {vogh} is
allowed
>> to take {-Daq} is unresolved at this point. My opinion is that it is like
its
>> brother, {naDev}, and wouldn't ever take {-Daq}, but again, I can't
criticize
>> trI'Qal for thinking the opposite.
TQ:
>Let us understand something here: YOU CANNOT SAY SOMETHING EXISTS IN Hol
>JUST BECAUSE FROM WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN, IT *SHOULD* EXISTS UNLESS YOU HAVE
>PROOF THAT IT CAN!
>You are trying to make a hypothesis wihout any proof! Yes, I agree that
>what you are saying is *possible*... it would make sense... but there is
>absolutely NO PROOF to support your hypothesis that <vogh> should also be
>one of those words which is an exception to the -Daq rule... in which
>case... guess what? IT ISN'T! Until you show me some real, SOLID
>evidence that <vogh> shouldn't take -Daq, IT TAKES it, because THAT is
>what the KD says!
>Yes, I am getting a bit peeved about this. Ideas are great... but
>REMEMBER TO BACK THEM UP before you start trying to push them on the rest
>of us as this-is-the-way-it-should-be! Thank you! {{:)
The conservative thing to do is tack {-Daq} onto {vogh}. There I agree. I was
merely hypothesizing that {vogh} could perhaps be in the same category as
words like {naDev}, {pa'}, and {Dat}. I have no proof. Are theories still
allowed here? Ok then. {voghDaq jIjatlh}.
[material about {Hol wIja'chuq} deleted]
>#1: You don't get it. We don't have the right or authority, nor
>anything else to declare EVEN ONE THING as "slang"! It looks like
>salng? Fine. IT is NOT slang... unless you want it to be your own
>private dialect, bceause I for one, will NOT share it with you.
>#2: What is semantically clear to YOU is not necessarily semantically
>clear to ME, let alone an entire other CULTURE!! ?Hol wIja'chuq? is
>nothing more than verbal (or in this case, ASCII) garbage to me. So it
>"feels right" This goes back to the "instincts" thing: By what
>reasoning to you have to impose your terran-language based concepts of
>grammar upon Klingon? Whatever it is, it had better be *damned* good...
>because in my mind, there isn't any reason.
Come sit by my little bonfire and I'll tell the story of how I came to think
of {Hol wIja'chuq} as justifiable.
You are of course well aware that some verb prefixes do the duty of
indicating an indirect object while also having an explicit direct object
which apparently does not belong with the prefix. {lutwIj qaja'} and {pu'lIj
HInob} are good examples. Suppose that the indirect object was "each other"
but there was still a direct object. What then? {-chuq} could come into play
while the object is still indicated by a prefix for a third person singular
object. Of course, TKD or any other canonical source gives us nothing about
incorporating the Type1 verb suffixes into this indirect object twisted
prefix phenomenon (for lack of a better name). Could one get away with
something like {HolQeD De' maja'chuq}? If you saw this construction in one of
my texts, would you (A) know its meaning and (B) realize that you know its
meaning because it is at least acceptable grammar and not because it is some
twisted form of English grammar that doesn't fit into Klingon?
>> >Come on! You are saying that just because a word is listed in the KD, it
>> >defies the laws of grammar we were given? I suppose next you are going
>>
>> [interruption:] Whoa! Now, I'm not like some other people here. I realize
>> that {ja'chuq} is made up of the verb {ja'}+{-chuq}, and that its listing
as
>> a separate entry in TKD doesn't prove jacksquat as far as its transitivity
>> status is concerned.
>Your arguments are saying the contrary. Here you are saying how ?Hol
>wIja'chuq? looks reasonable as "slang" or some such, and now you are
>trying to tell me you don't think it is grammatically correct. Please
>decide what it is you want to say, and say it clearly. (Heh... I am one
>to talk, I know... but still... sheesk)
It still makes sense. Think carefully: I can say that X is slang, and also
that X is ungrammatical, and not be contradicting myself. Slang is
ungrammatical. That's what makes it slang.
>> >to tell me I can say something like:
>>
>> > ?jIHvaD lo'laHlaH taj?
>> > "The knife can be valuable for me"
>>
>> Now this time you're getting me all wrong. I don't agree with this. Wofuer
>> halten Sie mich?-- einen Narr?!
>I don't speak German, and neither do most of the rest of the people on
>this list, I believe. I speak Klingon, English, and if I really
>concentrate, some French. I don't want to really have to concentrate, so
>please pick one of the first two.
Du wirst ja sehen, vielen Leute hier kennen doch wenigstens etwas von
Deutsch. Wir haben hier eigentlich viele Sprachwissenschaftler. Wer Deutsch
versteht, der wuerde mich sehr kritisieren, mein schlechte Deutsch hier zu
versuchen.
>>
>> >I don't think ANYONE is going to agree this is a viable construct. *I*
>> >certainly wouldn't! And what you are doing is essentually the same
>> >thing: You are saying that because it happens to be listed seperately in
>> >the KD, it is a WHOLE NEW WORD, and that it defies the rules we have been
>> >given so far.
>>
>> Ackptooie! You got the wrong guy, I tell ya! That ain't me! I don't think
>> that way!
>qar'a'? yItob! nuq Dajatlh 'e' DaHechba'?
>> >I don't buy it.
>>
>> But ya gotta listen! I was framed, see?! Framed! Yeah, that's it! That's
the
>> ticket!
>*chuckles*
>> >Unfortuantely, I don't have my tapes here with me to skim for an example
>> >to support this. If what you are saying is true, then we can have things
>> >like <maja'chuqchuq> "we discuss each other". Sorry, *MY* KD sez I can
>> >only have **ONE** of each verb suffix type on each verb. And this sure
>> >as HELL looks like it is in violation of this rule to me.
>>
>> >Why don't we just start letting people say <ramvam HIpong> "call me
>> >tonight" and get it over with???
>>
>> Augh! NOW YOU'RE CALLING ME A PROECHELIST!!! That does it, trI'Qal! You
fire
>> up your rusty pile of bolts, lIy So' and meet me just outside of
>> UpperSandusky (midway of Lexington and Toledo) at the break of dawn. I'll
be
>> waiting with all my loyal Guidos right behind me. Right, Guidos?!!
>Gladly. My crew need some entertainment... but seriously... this is
>where your arguments were leading. If this WASN'T what you intended...
>what was? Because this was the message *I* was reading.
The only reason my 'argument' lead to this was because you took it there. You
kept telling me I believed stuff that I really didn't. How could you ask me
why I justified {maja'chuqchuq} and {jIHvaD lo'laHlaH taj} and {ramvam
HIpong}, when I *don't* justify that stuff? How else was I to react? When you
start arguing against *me*, rather than my opinions, I tend to spaz out. It's
only normal. Remember, it's all a part of being what I am. (scary!)
That wasn't the worst of it, tho.
batlh mughoHta' je Holtej'e':
>Lest Guido accuse me of lecturing, as I did him above,
>all this is speculative. My opinion was requested,
>and this is it. I'd love to argue further about
>these interpretations.
>--Holtej
I submit. It's all you. I can't go on without feeling foolish. Altho, I must
compliment Holtej on a much more civil post than the one in which I was
obliged to counter trI'Qal.
I'll summarize for myself. When one wants to express a thought that would
involve putting two nouns together in some way, one has two options,
depending on the semantics. If one seeks to express a possessive
relationship, the N-N is appropriate. If one seeks to express a relationship
between the nouns that is not necessarily possessive, the compound is
appropriate.
This is all has its roots in {ta'be'}. My original intent was of course that
the order of the components can be determined by placing the noun which
describes the actual nature of the thing last, with all its modifying nouns
before it, like in lojban.
Recently, as I mentioned earlier in the post, many people have been
countering me for my opinions. It is much more frequent that it has been in
the past. But I find grammatical arguments to be very unproductive, and more
often than not, at least with me, it seems, they become a war between the
arguers, rather than turning out some new perspective on the issue. That may
be a cut on my argumentation abilities or on my grammatical opinions, or,
more likely, both.
The only place grammar really matters is not in general list discussion
(where it seems that virtually every piece of Klingon generates endless
arguments pointlessly), but instead in places like Hamlet, which I'm
currently working on alongside Nick. It is vital that the grammar there be
right and acceptable.
Because that project takes a large chunk out of my time, I'm going to
withdrawal from all grammatical arguments here on the list. I will restrain
as much as possible from expressing my opinions too flagrantly. I may come
back in later, but for now, the people who claim to 'enjoy my insights' will
have to survive without this DIbqoq.
And people wonder why I average a C in English class...
Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos, signing off