tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 20 07:17:30 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: <-vam> was (taghqIj concedes defeat!)
According to Anthony Curran:
I appreciate that you see my point and that you partially
disagree. I respect your right to do this.
> I'm not sure this can be resolved easily. I would tend to believe that
> using <-vam> or <-vetlh> on a time word, or on <ghu'> or <wanI'> would be
> fine as long as context made the meaning clear. Communication is, after
> all, our intent. I think we may hamstring ourselves if we place too many
> restrictions on such contructions, simply because there is no explicit
> statement extant that they are allowed. And I think that the language in
> sec. 3.3.4 concerning <-vam> and <-vetlh> is sufficiently open to
> interpretation that it cannot be taken as an explicit statement against
> this construction.
My objection is based on a consistent approach to the language
I've sustained. I have not always been right. Early on, I had a
really hard time with {qajatlh} used to mean "I speak to you,"
and though Okrand has not specifically sanctioned this
(especially as a greeting), he has used prefixes to refer to
indirect objects enough that I've accepted this use of prefixes.
Meanwhile, when many good Klingonists were using {-ghach}
because it made a lot of translations a LOT easier to do (even
though the resulting text was somewhat difficult to read), I
held out against it, even over objections by Krankor, for whom
I have profound respect.
Glen Proechel proposed that {-ghach} should be avoided, but
proposed in its place that any verb could be used as a noun
whenever anybody wants to. I objected to that even MORE
strongly. Once again, it made English easier to translate into
Klingon, but it made sentences that were nearly impossible to
read.
One could argue that context would take care of it in both
cases, but lets face it, if I hit you in the forehead and then
point my chair, context could arguably make my meaning quite
clear. We need no grammar if context will cure all.
As it turns out, when Okrand finally spoke about {-ghach} (and
he took his sweet time doing so), I was right on both counts.
Most of our use of {-ghach} at that point was wrong, and as I
suggested, it is a suffix with very limited use intended to
solve a specific grammatical problem (how to nominalize
suffixed verbs) and nothing more. And, as I suspected, the idea
of using any verb as a noun is officially absurd.
My approach is to follow the rules as they are most clearly
expressed with as few extensions as possible. When Okrand
offers us new extensions through interview or canon example, I
take that on as a new tool for the language.
Meanwhile, I tend to shy away from temptation to extend a tool
and then hope for Okrand's later verification. A lot of people
on the list try to do this all the time. It very rarely works
in the long run.
Krankor's use of {-'e'} to mark the head noun of a relative
clause with an explicit subject AND object of the verb with
{-bogh} was such an extention which Okrand later agreed to. It
was a great idea. Also note that it did NOT make writing
Klingon easier so much as it DID make READING Klingon easier.
It immediately made sense to anybody it was explained to. I
don't remember anybody challenging it.
> This may simply be a difference in outlook. Perhaps the writer in me
> rebels at such restrictions. On the other hand, bad grammar is
> inexcusable, no matter how creative we wish to be.
Yeah. Meanwhile, I think it is the restrictions which fascinate
me. If I can work within the restrictions and STILL express
interesting things, then the rewards for successfully facing
the challenge are great. I enjoy it when the tools are expanded
along the lines that Okrand usually offers, since generally it
means the text written in Klingon is clearly spoken.
I think your use of {-vam} and {-vetlh} on time words is in a
gray area, not nearly as controversial as {-ghach} or the use
of all verbs as nouns, but not as clearly good and right as
using {-'e'} to mark head nouns in relative clauses. It strikes
me as stylistically weak and avoidable. I will seek to avoid
using it, though I'm not going to comment on it every time I
see it. I may be tempted to mention my objection to beginners
if I see droves of new writers using it as if it were canon
sanctified.
> qo'ran
Will
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |