tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 26 21:06:17 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qama'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: qama'
- Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 00:06:22 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 01:41:56 -0800 (PST) [email protected]
wrote:
> ... I respectfully disagree. Earlier you implied we should not be
> looking at other languages to understand better how Klingon works. Again, I
> disagree. Really disagree. Only by understanding MO's terms when he gives us
> Klingon grammar rules can we correctly use Klingon.
The reason you become so isolated and repeatedly attacked when
you come to us with relationships you see between some property
of Klingon and terms you've studied when looking at other
languages is that you don't show insight or familiarity with the
language when you apply these apparent relationships.
The frustration we have about this is that you are not a
beginner. You've been working with this language for a long
time. You show a near conversational ability to use the
language, sprinkled with odd errors that seem incongruous with
the skill you otherwise show with the language.
Aspect was the most recent, blatant example. As a community, we
were unanimously amazed that anyone could have worked with the
language as long as you have and could have written as many
good, clear sentences as you have and yet show such a total void
of understanding of how Type 7 verb suffixes worked.
And it is not just that everyone recognized that you were
misusing them. You were making declarations about how Type 7
suffixes were to be used which were quite obviously wrong and
getting really nasty and pseudoauthoritarian about why you were
right and everyone else was wrong. You were waging war you
obviously couldn't win. You had no allies because everyone, from
the most experienced speakers to moderately talented beginners
could see that your perspective was fundamentally flawed on how
Aspect worked in Klingon and how four specific suffixes were to
be used.
If you lacked skill with the language, you'd be less
frustrating. Instead, you have some insight and some definite
skill with these odd gaps in your understanding of the language,
and when you detect a difference between one of your
misunderstandings and the common sense of the language, you
charge, like Don Quixote to the windmills, lance poised and
steed at full tilt. You never take the perspective that maybe
you are mistaken. You begin by declaring the rest of us wrong
and present yourself as the only person capable of understanding
your pet theory of the moment.
Over and over again. If a person got paid for making people roll
their eyes and groan, you'd be a wealthy man. Since you
probably DON'T get paid for this behavior, we really don't
understand why you do this.
> Here's is what I "got": In order to understand Klingon more deeply, I look at
> many languages and see how the terms I read in TKD are used. pab mu'mey
> Dayajqangbe'chugh, vaj tlhIngan Hol Dalo'Ha'bej.
tlhIngan Hol jatlhlaHba' tlhInganpu'. ghaytan pab mu'mey lo'be'
HochHom tlhInganpu'. tlhIngan Hol lulo'Ha'be'bej. pab mu'mey
Dayajchu'chugh 'ach tlhIngan Hol Dalo'Ha'taHchugh vaj pagh
Datob.
> peHruS
charghwI' 'utlh