tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 05 23:43:21 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Questions as objects (was KLBC: Mole's tale)
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Questions as objects (was KLBC: Mole's tale)
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 02:43:08 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 97-11-04 15:35:27 EST, ghunchu'wI' writes:
<< However, I
>would argue that users of a language have a right to innovate new usages
>when they can find no other efficient way to say what they mean.
Users of a natural language eventually cause the language to evolve.
However, Klingon is not quite [yet] a natural language. We are merely
studying and trying to learn how to use what we know about it. Adding
"innovative" usages in an attempt to compensate for a perceived lack
in the grammar is rarely a productive endeavor. It's better to make
use of the grammar's strengths instead of dwelling on its weaknesses. >>
<<pe'>>
jIQochbe'bej. In all my other arguments, I am not supporting innovative
usages. I am not saying there is not another way to express a concept in
Klingon. I am not saying another way would be more efficient. I am merely
pointing out that TKD 6.2.5 already gives us the answer.
I am trying to learn this language the way matlh and MO have given it to us.
Until MO himself tells us we should further the development of the language,
I will stick to furthering the development of tlhIngan Hol literature without
agreeing that we should be more interpretative than debating the existing
grammar and vocabulary.
pItlh
peHruS