tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 17 13:08:33 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: grammarians
- From: Captain Krankor <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: grammarians
- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 00:09:54 -0700
>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.
Completely valid complaint. I completely agree and add a mea culpa.
Keeping the FAQ up to date is one thing which has been woefully
fumbled.
>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.
Well, it's a little premature to be conceding the point. But we
won't open that can of worms just at this moment. Suffice it to say
I'm intending to rebutt Glen's article in the next HolQeD (if I can
ever get any time together to work on it!) But I certainly agree
on this occasion that this is one we really ought to get Okrand to
comment on. In the end, all of the several possible readings of the
section in question have some validity because it is worded so
vaguely.
>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...
I doubt it will fall to me by default, but I would certainly hope to
have a strong say in it. I simultaneously agree about the need of
such an undertaking, and yet really dread it. It's going to be
impossible to get people to agree.
--Krankor