tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 22 09:42:30 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Qaghqoq
- From: [email protected] (Nick NICHOLAS)
- Subject: Re: Qaghqoq
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 94 13:40:35 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "d'Armond Speers" at Mar 10, 94 12:37 am
Hu'tegh! nuq ja' d'Armond Speers jay'?
(Going through my mail, I fell upon this: )
[talking about not using reH or -taH]
=> In either of those cases, it is not as derogatory as saying that he
=> is a fool in general, in which case the tenseless {Dogh} should suffice.
=Why choose ambiguity over clarity, especially when the language (in
=this case {{:) ) gives a nice solution?
Because (as you know, being a Holtej ;) ), that's not how languages work,
the PK dictum on "Accuracy" notwithstanding. People value succinctness over
clarity, and pragmatics is a mighty handy helper.
It'd be worth me to do some text statistics some time on how often ghaH is
dropped, for example. My hunch is: much more often than Okrand ever envisaged.
--
Nick.