tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 05 22:02:25 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Odd and End

According to Nick NICHOLAS:
... 
[comments about Hamlet establishing grammatical usage]

> This is why it is so important for people to comment on the usage in these 
> works while they still can, before they're hard copy.

Well, for all his positive traits, Guido, for one, does not
seem to accept editorial comment. Instead, he explains why he
cannot accept each suggestion, regardless of whether he
considers it to be an improvement or not. Such changes would
make the resulting translation less his own. Given that, I've
withdrawn from my role as editor of his work, since it is then
a waste of my time, and in no way offers me the opportunity to
have an effect on the grammatical usage to which you refer.

> Questions that arise on the list are questions that I've already had to face
> often in my work, and which I find Guido is now facing too. Some of them
> haven't even been raised: where do you put the -'a' when making a law' ---
> puS comparison a question? It was obvious to me that it goes after the law'
> and puS; it was just as obvious to Guido that it goes after the verb embedded
> before the law'.
...
> So there are four possible outcomes:
> 
> * Someone arbitrarily proclaims that I'm right and G's wrong.
> * Someone arbitrarily proclaims that G's right and I'm wrong.
> * We realise that we can't tell which is right, and avoid the form altogether.
> (Taken to its logical conclusion: we stop writing in Klingon entirely.)
> * We allow individual variation to continue.

You ignore the possibility that someone might come up with a
better suggestion. What about making the sentence a statement
with the addition of {qar'a'?} after {puS}? This leaves the
comparative structure alone and turns the resulting statement
into a question. After all, the question really is, "Is it true
that A is Ber than C?"

> One final point. There's been a lot of talk about whether ghaH is a verb
> or a pronoun. The fact that there's controversy should have alerted you
> to what I think is the only intelligent answer: it is neither. Rather, it
> is what used to be a pronoun (otherwise, why couldn't you say tlhIngan jIghaH?)
> becoming grammaticalised into a copula verb (otherwise, what's the verb
> suffix doing there in jIHbe'?) It is a form in transition, just as rIntaH
> is (otherwise, what would rIntaH be doing between the main verb and its
> subject?)

While this fits perhaps less with your current theory of
interest, I think {ghaH} is pretty much what Okrand says it is.
It is a pronoun which is sometimes used as a verb, just as many
verbs are sometimes used as adjectivals, and just as many time
related nouns are often used adverbially. You can't use a verb
as a verb and as an adjectival at the same time. The rules are
clear about when they count as which. Similarly, you can't use
a pronoun as a pronoun and as a verb at the same time. The
rules are clear as to when you can use which. Same for time
nouns used adverbially. I think that your focus on Klingon's
pseudohistory can lead to some unfortunate distortions of the
grammar.

I also do not share your interest in a hostile takeover of the
language. I do not see that Okrand, as the man who went through
the painstaking task of deciding each word in the vocabulary
and each rule of the grammar, has done such a pitiful job of it
to deserve the disrespect of being shoved aside in the name of
progress as we appoint ourselves authorities capable of
changing the language without his consent. 

Similarly, I have a lot of respect for Krankor for having made
this list possible and for becoming probably the first human on
the planet with a conversational skill level with the language
before he had anyone else with whom to enjoy a conversation.
While I don't always agree with his every pronouncement, I most
frequently do agree with him. I see him rarely attempt to step
beyond the bounds of usage unjustified by canon and I see him
reconsider when someone brings up points he had thought less
about in the past.

At any rate, I seek change in the language with the cooperation
of these more established Klingonists. I'd rather see changes
that are uncomfortably slow and well thought through by those
most experienced as well as those with the greatest linguistic
expertise. I'm into consensus. That implies change with consent
by all parties, rather than revolution, which is what it sounds
like you are promoting.

If you want your own language, why don't YOU make one up? Why
step in and revolutionize a language that somebody else is not
finished with yet?

...
> I hope Krankor doesn't do a HolQeD expose on topicalisation; first, because
> he'd have to get the definition of topicalisation from a linguistics textbook
> rather than his dictionary, as he's done in the past with other linguistic
> terminology :-)

Nick, this constitues a flame, in case you don't quite grok the
concept. It was an unnecessary insult. It does not earn you any
respect. It harms your own authority here more than it harms
Krankor's because it shows your lack of interest in cooperation.
I, for one, am not impressed with your creditials, if this is
what you choose to do with them.

> Nick Nicholas

charghwI'

Back to archive top level