tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 19 11:24:44 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: ma'veq: It's official

>> I do not care. I am, on occasion, willing to sacrifice
>> perfect grammar in the interest of clarity. People do it all the time.
>
>
>maQochqu'. 

Oh well.

>If you think some expression or construction is clearer by being
grammatically
>incorrect then it would be if it were grammatically correct, the reason is
>probably that the language that you're using doesn't match the grammatical
>description you're using. If your usage is really clearer, it is so
because
>it *is* grammatical, by the matching grammar.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. But, don't you see how by limiting
the number of suffixes that can be put on a combination of words, one
limits the amount of combinations that can be made? It's not a rebellion
against grammar, it's a simple multiplication problem. Here are my options:


object(suffix) 'e' statement

or

object 'e' statement.


There are only two choices. It is either all or nothing. There is no way
that choosing between those options can be more accurate than being able to
choose between these options:


object(suffix) 'e' statement(suffix)

or

object(suffix) 'e' statement

or

object 'e' statement(suffix)

or

object 'e' statement


There are *four* options. The law of averages states that one is more
likely to find one of *those* statements that accurately describes the
truth, than if one had to choose from the two, previously mentioned
statements. You can't argue with that. As for the correctness of the
statement one chooses, well... they can't all be gems. If one really wants
to be clear, then one is going to have to sound like an under-educated
babbling fool. 

Just look at clipped Klingon: Everyone on this list could agree that
clipped Klingon is correct. C'mon! It's blaringly incorrect! The only
reason why anyone accepts it is because it makes sense! No one would add
prefixes that aren't necessary, when time is not a luxury. Clipped Klingon
sacrifices correctness to save time, just like contractions (which, by the
way, are also incorrect grammar). 

Why is it so unreasonable for someone to sacrifice correctness to gain
clarity? And don't just tell me, "because it's wrong."


--- loD Doq



Oh! And here's another:

"These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise... (you know it) ... and
to boldly go where no one has gone before."

There's some more incorrectness for you. One can't split an infinitive like
that. But, in this case, Pikard did it for emphasis. If Pikard can break
the rules for *emphasis*, why can't I break them for clarity?

Back to archive top level