tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 19 15:00:22 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qaD vIjang: leng'a'
- From: [email protected] (Nick NICHOLAS)
- Subject: Re: qaD vIjang: leng'a'
- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 94 18:58:28 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "trI'Qal" at Mar 19, 94 6:39 pm
Here we go again. Not a flame, I hasten to add, but an exposition of why I
think articles like my extensive comments on Krankor's tale are a good thing.
But if you don't like this kind of thing, here's a screenful of carriage
> [ghod-awful long comments on Qanqor's post deleted]
> Dochvetlh'e' nuq?
> ghorgh pabpo' Damojpu'???
No, *you* yItam.
This is silly. Look,
a) Qanqor made it explicit in his follow-up that he was soliciting comments
on the grammaticality of his text.
b) Precisely because he is grammarian, the grammar of his texts must be
scrutinised, since he ostensibly provides a model for others. While I am
sure he would have preferred literary to grammatical criticism (and it was
a well-told story, if somewhat drawn out in places), the latter is inevitable
and essential in languages as fragile as Klingon or other artificial
c) The errors I pointed out (did you even read them?) are almost exclusively
not "nits", but rather deep and oustanding grammatical issues, such as
calquing of idioms, and whether cased nouns can modify others --- where
Krankor probably thought he was right, on which a Krankorian Dixit will not
suffice, and which consensus, I suspect, would lead away from.
d) The author is *never* the best qualified person to review their own
grammar, accustomed as they are to the sound of their voice (this is as valid
of Krankor, Mark or me as of any other); to suggest that Krankorian text be
exempt from the process of peer review is plainly insane, and I would be
flabbergasted if he in fact advocated it, particularly given the *level* at
which the comments were directed.
e) Noone ever forced you to read my posts, and while I am in no mood to
resurrect our earlier disagreement, DuSugh 'Iv?
f) While I agree that normally it is the official grammarians' job to correct
text (which is why I'm waiting on the Bhagavad; I wasn't online at the end
of Feb, so I know not what was decided on grammarian guidelines, but I'm
adhering to those I'd proposed) --- the reason why grammarians exist is
primarily to provide a single voice for beginners' texts. When experts' text
is involved, and obscurer grammatical areas are explored, the single voice (I
maintain) becomes a debit, not a credit. In any case, even if the grammarian
principle still applies here, given that Krankor's text is now in the public
domain, and that review must be peer review, if I've usurped anyone's
position, it is Mark's --- not Krankor's, and not yours. Would you envisage
yourself similarly telling Mark off, had he commented on Krankor's text
before Krankor had posted the correction you expect?
g) I *am* "being useful", as you put it, but pointing out what I believe to
be dangerous grammatical mis-loans from English, which I think should not
be picked up by Klingonists or sanctioned by going unmentioned. Whether I
am right or no in these judgements is for the list consensus to decide; if
we cannot discuss grammaticality on this list, then it gives no real reason
for expert Klingonists to participate in it. Which is all very well if you
want to keep Klingon at the "See Spot Run" level, but some (including, I
would say, Krankor, Mark, charghwI', Richard Kennaway, Marnen, Guido, and
myself) wish to write in Klingon at such a level of conceptual complexity,
that such grammatical and stylistic questions are inevitable and vital.
h) Would that a single one of *my* texts ever got a tenth of the grammatical
attention I've given others'. Or even the plot attention. But that's another
> bIjatlhDI', qabqoqlIj yIlo' pagh yItamqu'!
i) Use my alleged face? Excuse me?
j) I certainly hope Krankor understands the spirit in which I made these
comments; indeed, since the type of commentary I've done is frequently seen
here, I would expect that everyone would. I dare not speculate why you have