tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 07 22:03:13 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Harangue (was: Re: maHagh tlhInganpu')

On Thu, 4 Dec 1997 19:29:16 -0800 (PST) "Mark E. Shoulson" 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> This harangue is not aimed at Voragh; in fact, he has little to do with it.

Instead, it seems more directly aimed at me, perhaps correctly. 
Unfortunate that it arrived during my rather challenging call to 
duty which has rather disrupted my participation here. Ahh well. 
Why not?

> 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.

My feelings about Glen are based upon his dishonest business 
dealings with David Barron, his interest in using Klingon to 
make personal profit and convert others to his theology, and his 
numerous rather extreme errors including practices like making 
up his own words for uncle, aunt, cousin, etc., using any verb 
as a noun whenever he wanted to and other stuff he did, all while
declaring himself the singular meaningful authority on the 
language. I would ordinarily not bring this up, but the many new 
members here might otherwise simply think I'm a petty, jealous 
competitor with Glen.

I've been unpleasant recently. I care about the language. There 
have been other rather extreme and unusual pressures on my life. 
I've allowed that stress to bleed into my sensitivity to what 
feels like pollution of the language. This actually does tie 
into my feelings about Glen in that he and I have goals that 
directly compete with each other. His goal is to come up with 
methods to quickly bulk-translate large quantities of English 
text into Klingon without a lot of thought about individual 
sentences and phrases. My goal is to express things in Klingon 
in such a way that one reading the Klingon will understand it 
clearly and perhaps even enjoy those special opportunities for 
remarkable clarity and grace within the language.

The recent debate has hit that particular nerve. I really don't 
like it when I see one trying to bend Klingon grammar in order 
to get English phrases to more easily, in a bulk-formula 
compliant way, fit. The concern is less about how the Klingon 
will be understood than it is how to get the English into the 
Klingon. Thinking through each example and recasting it with 
what might be quite different grammar than another example which 
looks similar in English is considered distasteful.

But I digress...

I have damaged a relationship here for the sake of a grammatical 
construction. This is foolish of me. I am not proud of it.

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

Here, I believe I've been wrongly accused. I do think, thank you 
very much, even while shouting.
 
> 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?)

I've noticed a pattern in my own behavior here. Usually, when I 
go off on a tirade about grammar, there are these peripheral, 
coincidental events in my life. A friend gets murdered and I 
become unpleasant. A romantic partner discovers breast cancer 
about the same time that she reveals her continued feelings for 
a previous partner I didn't even know about, and, well, I become 
less rational than usual while arguing about indirect questions. 
Funny thing about this. I was not very nice a couple years back 
when my neighbor died of brain cancer.

Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who 
feel. I think and feel, and to be honest, I'd rather be dancing.
 
> ~mark

charghwI'

Back to archive top level