tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 11 13:50:36 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
In Which Qov Tries To Protect the Noncombattants
- From: Robyn Stewart <[email protected]>
- Subject: In Which Qov Tries To Protect the Noncombattants
- Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:52:59 -0700 (PDT)
---"Lt. Cdr. Sarah Barrows" wrote:
>
> Maybe I'm just a bit moody today. I dunno. Anywho.
maDIv maH. By the time any message reaches its second round of
replies, the grammarians have completely forgotten who originated the
grammar and are merely kicking the grammar itself. Do remember that
the most skilled people on the listserver have huge lists of things
they don't know, and keep discovering new ones. We're merely all in
this together. As soon as someone begins to write with any skill (a
category that certainly includes you) he or she has to start making
decisions about exactly how cautious to be with the edges of known
Klingon space. If you manage somehow to *completely* avoid all
disputed territory then you'll never get caught in the crossfire of
sniping grammarians. But that's an ideal, something I've never
managed to do, even while I'm trying to teach other people to navigate
safely.
In summary, after I (I hope with minimum pain) corrected you for doing
something that doesn't abide by well-known grammar, SuStel pointed out
that some less familiar grammar might permit it. SuStel, however, is
opposed to that grammar, so took the opportunity to reiterate his
stand against it. You and your understandable sentence were NOT the
target.
> Isn't being able to converse in
> tlhIngan Hol with some degree of fluency one of the big objects of the
> list, and of learning tlhIngan in the first place? I know it's at the
> top of my list. At the qep'a' we say all kinds of weird stuff that
isn't
> exactly grammatically correct but is more-or-less easily understood by
> the conversants. ::pout::
It is. We do. And wasn't it glorious?
> >>And you do know better than to use /'e' jatlh/ with the object being
> >>the words said. You meant /jIjatlhpu''a'/ without /'e'/.
> >
> >Not to mention that she put a {-pu'} on what she though was the
second
> verb
> >in a sentence as object construction . . .
> >
> >SuStel
>
> Now, I don't see that. I meant to say something along the lines of,
> "Haven't I already said that?" or "Didn't I say that before?" which is
> why I used /-pu'/. Maybe it's a case of my mixing up tense with > >
aspect again. I have been into Latin again a bit lately. Amavi,
> amavisti, ama- *smack!* This is a *Klingon* list, Syd! Pay attention!
The problem here was not with using aspect but with a little picky
rule that Okrand himself neglects: it's forbidden to use an aspect
suffix on the verb whose object is /'e'/. I think it's in section
6.2.5.
It may amuse you, or at least induce you to share the band-aids, to
learn that that kind of "and another thing" follow-ups to my KLBC
corrections feel like wounds to *me*, because they mean that either I
didn't see something, or didn't explain it properly. This one made me
growl briefly, "of course I didn't correct that, because once the
faulty /'e'/ was removed it stopped being a problem." Of course SuStel
and others aren't really attacking me OR you; they're just making sure
that no errors go unchallenged, to stand as misconceptions.
> Right. I think that'll do it for now, unless the Grammarians wanna
take
> any more blunt objects to my foolish cranium.... :)
I think the shooting has died down. Thanks for the reminder that even
longtime tlhIngan-Hol members don't like to be so close to the line of
fire.
> Especially under the influence of the full moon. I'm not mad, I'm just
> ... well, humbled, I guess. :) A bit 'o that is good for ya every now
> and then. Anybody got any band-aids? ;D
baroSvaD SevHommey nob Qov. mabachtaHvIS bong pIqIpmo' jItlhIj.
==
Qov - Beginners' Grammarian
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com