tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 27 01:07:50 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: grammarians
Nick suggests:
> 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...
> I presume, though, that the HolQeD letters page is the
> appropriate venue for this discussion...
And I respond:
The role of the KLI is to promote discussion. Where possible, HolQeD is
intended to serve as an arena for debate, rather than a proponent of one side
or the other. Where this is not possible, the position of the KLI is to err
on the side of description rather than proscription. When even this is not
possible (it's hard for cooler heads to prevail when we're all walking around
with those forehead insulaters keeping us so feverish) then the preference is
to take the more conservative road.
On the other hand, I am acquainted with Thomas Kuhn's arguments concerning
the notion of scientific revolution. But I don't think we've come anywhere
near far enough to talk about having a paradigm of our own, so the model is a
weak fit at best. Still, it's something to keep in mind.
To comment on the end of Nick's remark, I certainly agree, the
Letters-To-The-Editor section of HolQeD is indeed a very appropriate venue
for short arguments and discussion of thorny issues. While the frequency of
the journal may cause some of the debate to lose something of its immediacy,
it will also promote more thoughtful comments. Your participation is most
welcome.
Qapla'
Lawrence
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Dr Lawrence M Schoen, Director ::
:: The Klingon Language Institute ::
:: POB 634, Flourtown, PA 19031 USA ::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::