tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 17 10:09:14 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: grammarians

Hu'tegh! nuq ja' Captain Krankor jay'?

=Now, it should be noted and emphasized:  In the entire lengthy
=history of this list (some 3 years or so), I have invoked this
=authority a sum total of about twice.  I no longer even remember on
=what issues.  I think one of them was the compromise I finally made
=with Ken Beesley on assuming nouns from verbs and the use of -ghach.
=And even on that one I've been extremely loose in enforcing it.
=For the record, the official list policy is that you cannot directly
=assume a noun form from a verb, but you can directly put a -ghach on
=a verb which has no other suffixes.  For all of you who read Glen
=Proechel's article and think this is a new issue, let me assure you,
=we've been down that rat hole many times before.

Oh. Well, a couple of points:

1. These decisions (which are, after all, extensions to the canon; I
suspect what has been happening with relative clauses, and indirect
questions (the ghorgh question raised by Kevin Wilson) are also such
extensions) should be documented somewhere where they are accessible
to all. This -ghach decision is certainly news to me. I think the FAQ
is the most appropriate place for them.

2. You rejoined the list just after this happened, but the list's response
to Proechel's argument was virtually unanimous agreement, albeit with
some irritation (particularly on my part, as I had quite a bit of prose to
reword as a result). Subsequent usage has reflected this. The Proechel
argument, regrettably, has seemed to me, charghwI', Mark and others better 
supported, in the light of TKD Appendix. I'm not necessarily suggesting we 
reopen this dispute (a tedious, hair-splitting dispute at that), but I suspect
that, pragmatically, this one has probably gone against you. Which is all the 
more reason why Point 1 is important.

=And also, obviously, things established as language standards for
=this list are just that:  for this list.  They do not make it gospel
=truth for the entire Klingon-speaking world.  In general, though, we
=always try to be conservative, because the goal of avoiding a Tower
=of Babylon applies to the wider Klingon community as well.

In light of which, I think the KLI should start debating what *its*
grammarian status will be, particularly as it starts publishing work
in the KBTP which is produced by non-users of net-Klingon. (Glen Proechel
is only the most notorious of these.) A Klingon-wide standard should exist,
and should be explicitly promoted in the context of these works. Given
your role in HolQeD, it may be that this role falls to you by default.
Or, the time might almost be right for an "Academie de Klingon" (tlhIngan
Hol loH). I presume, though, that the HolQeD letters page is the appropriate
venue for this discussion...

-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
   Nick Nicholas.  The Nonce and Future Linguist. University of Melbourne.
                        [email protected]
"Henry Squirrel was thirsty. He walked over to the river bank where his good
friend Bill Bird was sitting. Henry slipped and fell in the river. Gravity
drowned." --- TALE-SPIN Story Generator, James Meehan, Yale AI Lab, 1975.

Back to archive top level