tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 04 19:20:50 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Harangue (was: Re: maHagh tlhInganpu')

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

This harangue is not aimed at Voragh; in fact, he has little to do with it.
Just that his post gave me the spring-off point.  He may have meant it
facetiously, but I get the feeling that it isn't entirely a joke to some
here.

>Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 13:16:28 -0800 (PST)
>From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
>
>On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>
>|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.
>
>Typical Klingon debating style, I would think.

Maybe, but Klingon to that extent I don't want to be.  And if that's the
sort of debate I'm to expect and accept on this list, then I want out.
Maybe I'd read such debates now and then out of curiosity, but I want no
part of a group which makes its decisions in such a manner.  I will not
participate in debates where narrow-mindedness and willful refusal to think
or understand are considered praiseworthy.  As I said above, since I tend
to be more inclusive in my thought, to see my opponent's point-of-view and
understand that maybe there IS something to it (even if I reject it), I
can't possibly compete, in terms of confidence and shouting volume, with
"I'm just plain right and you're just plain wrong, simply because I *KNOW*
that I'm right more than you do, and that's the end of discussion." (If you
think I'm exaggerating, read some of the posts the past few weeks and
you'll find words almost this strong.)  These arguments glorify (and are)
what Justice Learned Hand (I think) called "anodynes for the pains of
reasoning."

I have great respect for language instinct; without such Sprachgefuehl we'd
never get anywhere in any language, least of all Klingon.  And I have
respect for the Sprachgefuehl that resides in the minds and tongues of my
colleagues here.  Certainly, like everyone, I have my own private little
thoughts on seeing a "From:" line, guessing from the identity of the author
whether I expect the argument to be put forth will be well considered or in
accordance with my own feel for the language.  I'm sure we all have a sense
for whose Klingon we like and whose we disagree with.  And I certainly
believe that it is important to take careful account of the instincts of
skilled and experienced Klingonists in considering expressions in the
language.  It was disheartening, though, to see such respect used as a
weapon a few times on the list recently.  "I've been right before, so I
must be right again, don't argue with me."  I recall that Glen Proechel
could make similar claims, since after all, he WAS right about Hoch
placement, and about -ghach, and a few other points aside.  I'm not trying
to say things one way or another about Glen, but if Glen had been arguing
with charghwI', and had made the claims charghwI' made about being right in
the past (he does have such a record), would charghwI' have considered that
a telling argument?  I tend to think not, partly based on guesses about
charghwI''s feelings regarding Glen.  And if this devolves into comparing
scorecards (who was right more often?  About topics how complex?), I'll be
*quite* disgusted.

Doesn't it seem reasonable that we stand a better chance of understanding
things if we agree to THINK instead of shouting down opposition?

Make no mistake.  Most of the arguments made, both lately and throughout
the list's history, have been well-reasoned.  I've seen many exasperating
and (to me) silly suggestions, and I'm not suggesting they all need to be
re-examined.  Most were adequately dealt with through proper logic and
debate techniques.  It's the recent outbreak of bullying and proof by
volume that I want to watch out for.

(You thought maybe only charghwI' could get emotional about this stuff?)

~mark


positive (adj): mistaken at the top of one's voice.
				-- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQB1AwUBNIdy/MppGeTJXWZ9AQExMAL/eytbuaBLYDbC/oT5oZf4Vo9SDLn2iSS2
1bIIJtmWrX0S7PcOTLk9wgknF4EiV5oh0uBkfBOXqaCnehCq8JRgX97gT8VHkRrZ
MjTwsBCIpgf4sGeKAv7bPpIuuZjAD6nW
=tqb8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Back to archive top level