tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 23 12:33:42 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: double-booking of suffix positions
- From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: double-booking of suffix positions
- Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:28:04 -0600
At 12:40 PM 11/22/97 -0800, SuStel wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anthony.Appleyard <[email protected]>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
>Date: Saturday, November 22, 1997 10:58 AM
>Subject: double-booking of suffix positions
>
>
>>I am not the only one to complain about restrictions: ref. some of the
>>articles in HolQeD when Marc Okrand suddenly put -ghach on a short tether
>when
>>it looked like being useful in many constructions.
[...]
>Stop complaining. Stop thinking about what Klingon cannot do, and start
>thinking about what it *can* do. What exactly is your *point* in
>complaining, anyway?
>
As someone guilty at times of complaining, I'd just like to pass on an
observation. I became a lot less dissatisfied with Klingon when I started
writing directly in it, instead of translating from a previously-composed
English example. You get into the Klingon mindset that way, you only
use grammar that's already established, and your complaints vanish (or
at least lessen a lot). That's been my experience, anyway.
-- ter'eS