tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 05 14:35:21 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon pleasantries
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Klingon pleasantries
- Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 17:34:16 -0500
From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>
> I
>think you are WAAAAY off base to get wrapped this tight over
>this verb in particular. You have no argument. That doesn't
>diminish your passion, no matter how misdirected, but please
>realize that you have no rational grounds for assuming that
>{chegh} behaves like {ghoS}. You are making that up. It is a
>fictitious relationship created in your mind and it has no basis
>in anything Okrand has ever presented to us about the Klingon
>language.
Uhh, charghwI', YOU'RE the one getting wrapped up, impassioned, and
irrational. I'm not all that interested in one verb like {chegh}. I've
been clarifying as many of my sentences with stupid "if"s and "then"s as I
can in an effort to point out that I'm speculating. And I'd like to
speculate without you trying to slap me down because of how fundamentally
wrong my brain is working, based on YOUR interpretations. But conversation
on this list has been getting more and more difficult because every time
someone wants to think about a possible different interpretation for
something, you insist overwhelmingly, until they just give up because of the
abuse, that YOUR interpretation is right, and that's the end of the story.
Just for myself, I can recall conversations about adverbials with SAO {neH},
and double-object causative verbs, in which I stopped trying to think about
it simply because I didn't want to fight you. "I know exactly what's going
on, and you're going to accept it." Ugh.
Please stop demonstrating YOUR convictions by erroneously demonstrating
mine. Thank you.
SuStel
Stardate 99099.1