tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 31 14:50:07 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KliFlash [Was: Re: tlhIngan Hol pojwI' 2.0]

Here, my support is pretty predictable. Okrand has shown us 
how to use {ret} when it refers to a specific, measurable 
amount of time. He has not shown us how to use it alone or 
to refer to a vague quantity of time. We do have the vague 
statement that Klingons may be inaccurate, but they are 
never approximate and until I see some sort of usage 
different from this, I'll tend to favor giving artificially 
accurate time periods.

I'm sure I've fallen to the temptation of the conventions 
we've come up with on this list for vague time references, 
but I've never felt good about it. Generally, I've only 
done it when I was tired or in a hurry or otherwise 
careless.

We can argue about whether {ret} alone is preferable to 
{ben puS} and be wrong with either choice and not know it. 
Meanwhile, if we avoid either option and always state a 
measurement of time in time units, we are following the 
usage described by Okrand. The only "problem" we have then 
is culturally adjusting to the idea of giving a precise, 
inaccurate measurement for things. Meanwhile, I think we 
use the language better if we learn to do exactly that.

charghwI'

On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 17:49:07 -0800 Qov <[email protected]> 
wrote:
> At 18:44 00-01-28 -0500, SuStel wrote:
> 
> }My impression is that the first sentence is unacceptable to the experts on
> }the list, while the second is all right.  I fail to understand why.
> }
> }So why is {ben law'} superior to {ret}?  They're both pretty vague.  You at
> }least know the order of magnitude you're talking about with {ben law'}, but
> }nothing else.  Would {ben yaH lon} be acceptable?  "Years ago he abandoned
> }his post"?
> 
> I really wanted to agree with SuStel on this one, because I am aware of the
> bias towards the way we've always said things.  Newcomers have to have the
> guts to say, "Why do you say X, when there's a perfectly good word Y?"
> because the answer often is, "because there never used to be Y, and so we
> developed the habit of saying X."
> 
> That said, I think it is possible that the Klingon words for "ago" and "from
> now" can only be used with some indication of a time period.  (Like "ago"
> and "from now" in English.)
> 
> Ago we didn't know haow to specify something in the future if it was not
> days or years in the future.  Perhaps from now we will find a certain way.
> 
> The issue is not the "Klingons are never approximate" boast.  (Heck, if
> Klingons never did all the things Worf has claimed Klingons never did, there
> wouldn't be anything for Klingons to do).  The issue is whether the words
> can be used that way.  There's no proof they cannot be, but I think there is
> still reasonable doubt that they can be.
> Qov 'utlh 
>

Back to archive top level