tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 19 05:46:28 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: perpetual Today Is A *****
On Thu, 18 Jan 1996, d'Armond Speers wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 1996, Dennis Orosz wrote:
>
> You obviously do not know the man of whom you speak. charghwI', as long
> as I have known him, has always tried to express himself with Klingon from
> the perspective of a warrior. I would identify him as a model of creative
> expression, whose very success hinges upon his ability to cast his
> thoughts as a Klingon, while staying within the bounds of the grammar of
> tlhIngan Hol.
Quite obviously I don't know him, nor was this message directed as a
personnel attack I have boundless admiration for anyone who can lead and
teach with as much humor and intelligence as I've seen him using here.
That was why I directed the message to the list...my concern is that the
foucs of the group has become to much focused on the finest detail and is
therefore losing sight of the overall language.
> > it as it ought be spoken...Klingon is a "living language". [...]
>
> You are missing the point by a mile. What is the point of language?
thats possible...I'm not claiming omnipotence just asking a rather broad
question in perhaps to longwinded a fasion...
> Communication. I would not accept the claim that Klingon is a "living"
> language. There are no native speakers. There are no communities for
> whom Klingon is the primary language. We have a group of people who
> study the language, and communicate as best we can with the tools we have.
now I think you miss my point, all to easy to do as we attempt to
communicate in writing in a language that was designed to be spoken!!!
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
but I would insist that this is a living language to those of us involved
in this group, we await further information and exposition of its
vocabulary and grammer which we could not due were it a "dead"
language...please note the quotes in both cases.
> If we permit "corruptions" and "adoptions" to the language, then we are
> hindering our ability to communicate with the language. By accepting and
> respecting the grammar, we allow ourselves the freedom to be expressive
> with the language, secure in the knowledge that we will be understood by
> people who also respect and understand the grammar. If we deviate from
while I must agree with your logic and expertise as regards only the
language this is still aprt of the arguement I made...if we consider the
language to stand alone and there to be no Klingon this is fine...but if
there are no Klingon then what is the point? :) no I've not totally lost
my mind on the subject even though it sounds like the most fanatical of
fan rantings...but can we entirely divorce ourselvs, should we do
so...from the "life" of the language...argh language again fails me, I
know exactly what it is I wish to ommunicate to you but none of the words
is saying it! :(
> You can't consider Klingon to be a living, breathing and growing language
> like English. We don't have that luxury, because we don't have a
> community of native speakers. Because our community of speakers is so
> small, any distortions introduced to the language will only serve to
> weaken it's utilitiy as a medium of communication.
here I totally disagree, beleiveing that that consideration is not a
luxury but neccesary...this language does grow... you and the others here
make it breath and live
> The challege, rather, is to learn to use the tools that the grammar
> of Klingon provides, to express oneself clearly, as a warrior. How do we
complete agreement...questioning only the fineness of the lens you have
focused on it...
> as far as I can recollect, this philosophy of language use was first
> articulated clearly by charghwI', the man who you claim has lost touch
> with the language. yIDoghQo'!
again I was not attempting to disparage or attack chargwI'if the previous
message gave that impression let me right now publicly apologize that was
not my intent! It was the current or theme of the as I saw it of a
thread of messages I was trying to speak to...obviously I failed else you
would not have felt this impassioned defense necessary...
>
> We *are* its speakers.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ YES! YES! YES! you hit the nail right on the
head, thank you that is what I was trying to say, I just got caught up in
the words personel failing I fear, and used to many where this idea
expresses what I wanted.
tlhIngan Hol wIjatlh maH neH. 'ej
> choyajchu'chugh vaj pab Dayajchu'nIS. pab vIpabbe'chugh vaj
> choyajlaHchu'be'. pab vIpabchugh 'ej pab Dayajchu'be', vaj
> choyajlaHchu'be'. 'ej mayajchuqlaHchu'be', vaj maQumlaHbe'.
> maQumlaHbe'DI', QapHa' Hol.
>
> > Dennis
>
> --Holtej
>