tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 19 13:26:15 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

While you are correct that if Klingon grammar were different, 
there would be more accurate ways of expressing aspect in 
Sentence-As-Object constructions, it is equally correct that 
English would be more correct if we distinguished between 
singular and plural second person, or if we distinguised between 
the inclusive first person plural and the exclusive first person 
plural. There are hundreds, if not thousands of languages right 
here on Earth that are more clear about this than English is. 
Why don't we change it to clear up this vague, messy detail in 
our language?

Welcome to reality. So far as I know, every language has these 
short-sighted limits. You just deal with them. I recommend 
detachment. Don't fixate on a limit. Just flow with it.

You can't put an aspect marker on the second verb of a 
Sentence-As-Object construction. Don't think about it. Just do 
it. Don't be upset by it. Just work around it. You CAN work 
around it. Everybody else does.

charghwI' 'utlh

On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:55:55 -0800 (PST) Adam Snyder 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >> 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