tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 04 20:58:00 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qatlh QeH 'oH tlhIH'e'?
Note that the subject line of this note is grammatically *WRONG*, at least
in the dialect of tlhIngan Hol we use on the mailing list. It should be
{qatlh SuQeH}, or maybe {qatlh SuQeH tlhIH} if Guido wants to focus on the
angriness of the people whom he's addressing, as opposed to those he is not.
ja' Guido#1:
>ghItlh SuStel:
>>just put "KLBC" at the beginning of the subject line....
>
>There lies the key. I filter out KLBC messages, and so I won't be disrupting
>anyone's sterile learning environment too much.
However, the people who would be confused (or even harmed) by your "joke"
do not filter out messages that lack the KLBC tag. A serious student of
Klingon is going to be reading everything that goes by and attempting to
translate all the messages, and even the less serious will be reading and
remembering the messages written in English.
And the first question posted by a newcomer to the list rarely includes
KLBC in the subject anyway, because it hasn't yet been explained.
> Being disciplined by people
>that would be otherwise laughing is countereffectual.
Indeed, it was quite difficult for me to decide how I needed to react.
If you had presented your discourse as an example of why only the BG
should answer beginners' questions, it would have been an undeniably
funny creation. But the context in which it appeared was simply not
appropriate.
One does not joke about carrying a bomb while boarding an airliner, even
if the joke is obvious. Similarly, one should not give bogus answers to
a beginner asking a serious grammatical question.
> That's why I emailed
>[email protected] immediately, offering him not only the reasons for my
>facetiousness, but also the right answers.
But you did not explain yourself in the public forum in which you placed
your facetious (and entirely fictitious) explanation. There are a great
many lurkers here who saw the fabricated description of indefinite vs.
definite articles in Klingon, and the counterfeit "be" grammar, who don't
yet have the benefit of your reasoning and correct answer.
> Goodwilled persons have mentioned
>to me that this radical approach to catering to rookies may be just the
>thing to encourage them one step more. That remains a theory until further
>testing.
As long as you *immediately* identify what you have done to the same
audience who saw your original "radical approach", I won't complain.
But please don't keep the unsuspecting people on whom you are testing
your theory in the dark.
-- ghunchu'wI'