tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 01 07:34:25 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: maHagh tlhInganpu' (was:Klingon words for "subject"...)



At 10:58 AM 11/30/97 -0800, ~mark wrote:

>
>The only thing to go on here is instinct, I guess, and the rules we have.
>ter'eS is right that "it goes against my instincts" is not always the most
>helpful argument around, mainly because there's no way to respond to it.
>But it is somewhat helpful.  It happens that according to MY instincts,
>"maHagh Hoch" *is* okay (though perhaps some other examples aren't).  So
>there you have it, instinct vs. instinct.  One thing I'm finding
>particularly bothersome is that these sorts of discussions start to sound
>like shouting matches.  It's not a matter of who has which instincts, nor
>even whose instincts are more trustworthy, but who can sound most confident
>in his/her statement of them.  Since I, by nature, tend to be inclusive and
>aware of differing opinions when I state my own, I can't possibly compete
>with more assertive statements out there.  Does that make me wrong?  "I say
>this because I'm absolutely positive I'm right," indeed.  You may be, but
>that doesn't make you any more right.
>

OK, I can accept someone leading with their instincts.  But what really
convinces me is when they follow up those instincts with examples.  I
have a lot more time for someone who says "My gut says 'No', and here's 
why...".  This avoids the "shouting match" sort of thing, because when you
tell us _why_ it's against your instincts, we have the possibility to 
understand and to present counter-examples.  This is what charghwI' did, 
and Sustel eventually did, which is why I was able to follow their reasoning 
and come to accept it.  (Actually, I still think the idea isn't a bad one, 
but I can see now its not as cut and dried as I'd thought).

-- ter'eS



Back to archive top level