tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 08 23:39:10 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Qaghqoq
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: Qaghqoq
- Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 12:37:03 -0500
- In-Reply-To: Will Martin's message of Wed, 9 Mar 94 09:26:27 EST <[email protected]>
>From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
>Date: Wed, 9 Mar 94 09:26:27 EST
>Does this sound like a good list? What other things should be
>candidates? Should we polish the list by some manner of popular vote in order
>to reflect the priorities of the group?
Well, we should keep at least some list of outstanding issues... Some I
think which you missed:
How to handle heads of relative clauses which are not sunject or object, of
both main and subordinate clause (the "Ship in which I fled" problem).
Spellings of words we gleaned from PK and CK. Is it ?DroS? roS? ?DoroS?
Transitivity of assorted unclear verbs in vocabulary.
Adverbializing structure. Not necessarily a suffix or anything drastic
like that, but a sentence-structure that can be used to make verbs/clauses
adverbial. This would be something very nice.
Assorted vocabulary... nouns of position ("inside" has been mentioned).
How can nouns of time be extended? is "ben law'" OK for "many years ago"?
General info on how nouns of time fit in and when they can be unmarked and
when we need qaStaHvIS-like constructions.
*Anything* to help us with law'/puS constructions. How does it work with
pronouns? (jIH tIn law', SoH tIn puS? jItIn law', bItIn puS? What?)
How/where/if to add verb-suffixes for "because the captain is braver than
the commander"?
More if I think of 'em.
>I'm becoming frustrated with what I'm interpreting to be the nature of
>the group to be competitive at any cost. We'd rather fight to see who wins on
>an issue than resolve that which will best serve the communications
>capabilities of the language and conservative interpretation of canon. I do
>not understand why people seem to think that having one person bring forth an
>idea that could benefit the group somehow diminishes respect for others who
>have made many great contributions to the language. It feels like it is less
>important which way issues are resolved than it is from whom the ideas
>originate. I hope that I am grossly mistaken in this perception.
I don't know; from my perspective I think you are wrong. Yes, there are
arguments, but for the most part they seem to be honest arguments from
people trying to express themselves in Klingon using what they see as the
best interpretation of the canon. If that's not the object of Klingon
metadiscussion, I don't know what is. We're here to talk about Klingon and
talk in Klingon, and that means discussing how it's to be used and what
makes the most sense to us, given our linguistic instincts and the
canonical texts. And that's what we've been doing. The fact that this
doesn't lead to instant agreement is hardly surprising, since there's more
than one person on the list! I haven't seen anyone saying "Don't say
things like that, you're diminishing so-and-so's respect", or anything that
would even imply that. Yes, the words of some speakers are accorded more
weight than others, but it's the weight of experience and knowledge. I'm
more likely to take Krankor's pronouncements to heart than someone I've
never heard of, but that's because I know that Krankor and I usually agree
anyway, and also because I have a healthy respect for Krankor's linguistic
instincts which may not be present with someone new. That doesn't mean I
automatically discount new contributors, nor that I accept the word of old
hands blindly. I consider the words of both before deciding if I agree or
not. And given the lively discussion I've seen here, it looks like other
readers are using a similar process.
>In particular, I have profound respect for Krankor and strong respect
>for Guido, yet recently, it feels like I'm supposed to give up on what I
>think is both right and most useful and clarifying in order to avoid showing
>disrespect for these people I continue to respect.
There's a balance here that *is* worrisome. On the one hand, we all have
our opinions as to what is right and what isn't. On the other hand, we
want to forge a reaasonably consistent syntax and style. Consider what you
just said in your last sentence, that you feel you're being asked to go
back on yourself to avoid dishonoring those you disagree with. Well,
what's the alternative? Either you give up on yourself and agree with
them, or they give up on themselves and agree with you. Neither is a good
idea. You think they're wrong; it's your responsibility to say so and try
to convince them of your point of view. They think you're wrong; they have
the same responsibility. Disagreement isn't disrespect; if it were this
would be a moderated list and only three people would be allowed to post,
except for ecstatic "Yes, you're so right!" responses. Nobody wants to see
that. That isn't a forum. It looks to me like you have unrealistic
expectations: you expect to have your own opinions, but at the same time
you expect never to have to disagree with people. Face it, when there's
more than one mind, there's more than one opinion.
On the other hand, we *do* want to try to some kind of consensus, hence the
back-and-forth on these points and occasional sighs and calls for help from
Okrand. We don't want to see a splintered language that each group of
three people speaks the same way but no group thinks the other makes any
sense. We're doing our best for that. What would you prefer to see?
>charghwI'
~mark