tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 24 00:07:15 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Placement of aspect suffixes
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Placement of aspect suffixes
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 03:06:43 EST
In a message dated 2/23/1999 10:05:38 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< He is trying to help you improve your Klingon with a tool that
really works. Your response is to simply challenge the validity
of the tool. >>
=================================
Ah, but for the cyclical logic of it all.
He is using a device he made up while I keep hearing that we must all use only
devices, words, grammar patterns, etc. that MO has given us.
You condone his contrivance??? Even though it is not based in MO's
contributions to us.
Back to understanding words as glossed without proof from canon: I have
understood what I read about {naQ} and you have understood something else.
The argument could end right here. You have made up using {naQ} according to
your understanding but without proof. I have a different understanding of its
meaning, also without proof.
As to my telling MO what we need is this, that, etc. Yes, I "request"
sentences using the words he gives us. We are getting some explanations
through usage, such as on MSN forum, in skybox cards, episodes of Star Trek,
his books, posters. I cannot insist that MO write out sentences for every
word. But, I can express my desire.
Let's put it this way. I want to know the real meaning and usage of every
Klingon word. You folks speculate on a meaning. Then, you want me to agree
with your speculation in order to facilitate communicating.
Well, if we are going to tackle "defining the words ourselves," we need a new
mission statement as KLI. We really can expand the development of Klingon by
using it ourselves until it develops naturally, as real languages do. I would
be willing to write articles including speculative usages of Klingon words,
but only if we all agree that that is part of our membership in KLI.
peHruS