tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 01 07:34:25 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: maHagh tlhInganpu' (was:Klingon words for "subject"...)
- From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: maHagh tlhInganpu' (was:Klingon words for "subject"...)
- Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 09:28:33 -0600
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