tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 19 07:48:03 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Valid reasoning (was: Re: maHagh tlhInganpu')

At 03:32 PM 11/18/97 -0800, Qov wrote:
>lab ter'eS
>>Arguments of the type "it just doesn't feel
>>right" or "it violates my instincts" or even "the language doesn't
>>need it" are non-arguments: totally subjective, unanswerable. If we
>>all started talking that way, then we might just as well shut down 
>>the server and go home. If you don't like a legal construction, then 
>>don't use it, but you can't condemn it simply because of that. 
>
>I have no problem with {maHagh tlhInganpu'} or {malop Hoch} or 
>{veranganpu' QIp reHoH}.  I could at this point make strong 
>statements beginning with "I've been speaking Klingon for almost ten 
>years..." (I have, but it's misleading because I only began studying 
>it seriously when I joined the KLI) but an argument pitting my 
>instincts against SuStel's would be silly.  
>

Amen to that! 

<PHILOSOPHICAL>
This is one reason I've never liked the "my instincts say its wrong"
argument.  It pits people's credentials against each other's and encourages
comparsions about ability that I find distasteful.  

Consider also what it does to the taghwI'pu' on the list.  Someone new comes
on board all excited and full of new ideas.  They propose something only
to get it shot down with "my Klingon instincts say its wrong".  What have
we told them?  That Klingon isn't something they can actually understand,
that its really a sort of mystery cult and only the High Priests can
interpret it.  

Klingon isn't the _first_ language of anyone on this
list.  I don't think anyone can claim a monopoly on understanding the true
spirit of the language (maybe when Alec Speers grows up, we should submit
these type of decisions to him!).  Some of those newbies bring a fresh
approach which some of us more set in our ways can't immediately appreciate.
I'm thinking here of qoror's idea about using other words than {qaS} in
duration statements.  At first, I hated the idea, but I've since grown
to love it.

I've enjoyed the recent QAO discussions precisely because they have _not_
relied on "instincts".  Both sides have presented reasoned arguments.  That
they haven't been able to convince each other is unfortunate. but at least
they're trying.

This is just something I've had on my mind for a while.  This seemed like as
good a time as any to bring it up.
</PHILOSOPHICAL>

-- ter'eS

Back to archive top level