tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 17 20:49:49 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

grammarians



>From: Captain Krankor <[email protected]>
>Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 00:09:54 -0700


>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.

Just a quick word to add here; there may have been some misinterpretation
of my position.  The fact that I don't use -ghach on unsuffixed verbs
anymore should not be attributed to a wholehearted support to Glen's
article.  Rather, it is because the article convinced me that there was
room for argument, and indeed there *is* argument.  In keeping with my
innate wishy-washyness, I have adopted the most conservative approach of
using neither option that might be considered questionable: neither using
-ghach on unsuffixed verbs nor assuming nouns from verbs that aren't in
evidence.  Another major cause is simply that my Klingon style is moving
away from so much nominalization in the first place, reducing the need
(there may be some causal relationship between these causes as well).  In
my book, though, the argument is definitely not closed about -ghach.

>	   --Krankor


~mark



Back to archive top level