tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 07 23:54:38 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Cut off message
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Cut off message
- Date: Wed, 7 Sep 94 18:32:44 EDT
nuqneH
It looks like most of my response to Nick's post was cut off by
my mailer. Just as well. I was in a rather unpleasant mood and
I was somewhat disturbed by Nick's suggestions that we form a
sort of revoution against Okrand and Krankor and take the
language on as our own. I also didn't gain any respect for Nick
for his unnecessary flame of Krankor, referring to his use of a
dictionary instead of a linguistic text.
Basically, I do respect Nick's skills, but if this is the best
he can do with his credentials, I'm not impressed. I personally
prefer consensus over flame wars, and I think that changes in
the language can occur with everyone's consent, especially as
we gain even limited access to Okrand.
I had grammatical points about Nick's post as well. in
particular, he said something about there being only four
possible responses to the difference between the way that he
and Guido formed a question out of a comparative. Something
like:
1 Declare Guido right and Nick wrong.
2 Declare Nick right and Guido wrong.
3 Avoid the whole topic altogether.
4 Allow both of them to do as they wish.
He didn't list the possibility that someone might come up with
a better idea altogether.
jIH lugh law' SoH lugh puS qar'a'?
I think that works better than either {jIH lugh'a' law' SoH
lugh puS?} or: {jIH lugh law''a' SoH lugh puS'a'?} which, I
believe were the two suggestions.
I think there were other points, but I do not consider my
opinions to be so significant that great harm is done with fate
(in the form of a mailer) chooses to forget them.
charghwI'