tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 17 21:08:42 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Deixis and direction
I apologize to the list for having participated in yet another ASCII
miscommunication resulting in flames. Clearly, I am at least partly at
fault. It is time to retire once again. SuStel has attacked and retreated. I
defend and will similarly retreat. Comments below, but only for the
interested.
charghwI'
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Trimboli [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 1:20 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Deixis and direction
>
>
> >You
> > and ghunchu'wI' have certainly not explained what the single grammatical
> > function is for header nouns. The only thing they really have
> in common is
> > position in the sentence.
>
> > I've looked seriously at the idea and I honestly don't see any substance
> in
> > it. Please explain to me what "the" grammatical function is of header
> nouns
> > in a Klingon sentence. You have not done that even once,
>
> ARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! YES WE HAVE!! OVER AND OVER!!!!!!!!
> LISTEN TO SOMEONE OTHER THAN YOURSELF!!!!!
> Header nouns take the grammatical role of "everything that's not an object
> or a subject." That's their grammatical role!!!!! THAT IS THEIR
> GRAMMATICAL
> FUNCTION!!!!! I don't give a hoot whether this is a grammatical
> function in
> English! It is one in Klingon!
I genuinely regret your frustration, but you just confirmed my accusation.
Since the only grammatical functions that are defined by position are
subject and object (and without Okrand really explaining it, time stamps),
then everything else is what is left over. So, basically you only recognize
position as the one and only measure of grammatical function.
I consider grammatical function to be the nature of the relationship between
a noun and a verb while you consiser grammatical function to be the position
of the noun in the sentence. This is how you ignore Okrand's label of
"syntactic marker" on Type 5 suffixes and apparently have an amnesiac
epileptic seizure every time you get to the part in TKD where Okrand
explains that suffixes define grammatical functions.
> And no, I'm NOT going to clarify that with "I think." I've been
> doing that
> ad nauseum. I'm sick of it. Tough.
I suspect I can handle the strain.
> > You are determined to make this political and competitive. I'm
> not trying
> to
> > win. I'm trying to get us to agree on some basic truths about
> the language
>
> This is the single most ridiculous thing I have ever heard you say. Of
> course you are trying to win. You are trying to get me to agree with YOUR
> basic truths about the language.
I don't see that as winning. I see that as seeking the truth. I don't argue
with you so I can win. I argue with you so that we can recognize truth. I
sincerely cannot ignore Okrand's descriptions and arbitrarily decide that
position is the only thing that determines a word's grammatical function in
Klingon, pretending to have more insight into Klingon grammar than the man
who invented it.
> You don't see it that way. As far as
> you're concerned, since you ARE right, you therefore MUST speaking the
> truth, and therefore I should naturally agree with it. Because YOU are
> incapable of understanding it, it MUST be untrue. Any
> non-agreement totally
> bewilders you. After all, why would anyone believe anything that isn't
> true?
Why would anyone believe anything that isn't true?
I've certainly been wrong. I've been wrong after long battles over things I
believed were true, but I accept my errors when the fuller debate reveals
something more true than my mistaken beliefs.
> All you had to say was, "I disagree, and here's why." But no, you always
> add "And therefore, because you really said this, you're totally wrong."
> Drop this from your normal behavior, and life will improve.
First, I'm not sure that writing to this list constitutes "normal behavior"
by most people's standards. Secondly, well, I don't believe that you are
wrong. I do believe that your theory is wrong. You are talented, often wise
and interesting. This particular theory of yours doesn't ring true, either
by grammatical descriptions in TKD or by canon.
It was an interesting idea before it met much scruteny, but the closer I
look at it, the more it makes me explore the differences between what I have
believed and what it suggests and rather than revealing weakness in my
previous beliefs, it makes me all the more sure that the idea -- not MY
idea, but THE idea -- that Type 5 noun suffixes describe grammatical
function in a Klingon sentence is drammatically more effective and useful
than arbitrarily deciding that they don't count because only position
determines grammatical function for nouns in a Klingon sentence.
> I was not trying to be political and competitive. I originally threw this
> out, saying it was a suggestion for consideration, and
> disagreement need not
> be voiced, since it was just something to think about and I didn't want to
> make a big deal about it. Some people liked it, some didn't.
I honestly believe that we can work better with the language if we can agree
on what is true and what isn't. We don't have to do it honed to a fine
detail, but when something as radical as this comes along, it is important
to accept it or reject it, or those in earlier stages of learning the
language will be hopelessly lost. It is challenging enough for them as it
is.
I see this as no less fundamental than Proechel's suggestion that any verb
can be used as a noun whenever we want, since we only need {-ghach} to do
this when we need a suffix on the verb. While his point was interesting for
a brief examination, it was important to establish whether it was true or
not. It wasn't. If we went too long without establishing that, a great deal
of confusion would have ensued and a great deal of very bad Klingon prose
would have been in our archive.
Well, that happens anyway, but it would have been worse.
> Everyone was
> happy. But you love to be political and competitive. You do it
> constantly.
I've intentionally expressed praise for you and for the good ideas you
present, even in the midst of this argument over your unusual grammatical
theory here. Meanwhile, when I say anything about anything, you are either
silent or critical of me. I believe that you are acting in a defensive mode,
misinterpreting my sincere criticism of your theory to be a personal attack
on you.
It isn't. I LIKE you. I RESPECT you. I do this, even as I honestly conclude
that this "head noun" business is a crock. It has nothing to do with the
source. The idea itself is weak and perverse. You are neither.
> When someone disagrees with you, you slap them down until they
> shut up. And
> when people give up or run away from discussion, you figure that's because
> you must have been right all along. Finally, you go running to
> Okrand when
> you get the chance, ask him pointed questions which he doesn't
> realize will
> have particular repercussions because you didn't explain those possible
> repercussions to him, which was your whole idea, 'cause you want it your
> way. Lucky for the rest of us he takes some time to ponder these
> questions,
> or else everything would have been created by you.
You have no respect for how much care I have taken during my very rare
opportunities to speak to Okrand to NOT do what you accuse me of. Why use
the plural? I've had one interview with him. Years earlier, I had one
conversation with him at a con. The rest of the time, I've had pretty much
the same access to him that anyone else at qep'a' has had: Not much.
I don't lead him anywhere. His stuff about {jaH} and most of the other verbs
of motion screwed up my model of how that stuff worked. I "wanted" {jaH} to
be intransitive. Period. I did not get what I "wanted", and I went well out
of my way to make sure that what he said was what HE wanted to say and not
what I wanted him to say. I started the interview clueless about deixis. I'd
never heard the word and hadn't thought much of the concept.
My lack of interest in guiding him is also why I gave him the questions more
than a month before the interview, so that he would have lots of time to
consider the topic before we met. The only "live" questions or commentary I
gave during the interview was to explore the details of what he was saying
so that the information from the interview would not be as frustratingly
ambiguous as some interviews have been. Additionally, he got the text of the
interview before publication with a week to look it over before approving
it. I would have liked him to have longer than that, but Lawrence had a
deadline looming. There's a comment in the published interview about one
section where Okrand said that he approved of my examples, but wanted it
noted that they were my examples and not his. That was one of the things he
suggested during his review of the finished interview. I didn't want to trap
him into saying anything. I wanted to make sure he would have no regrets
about the interview, whatsoever. He was in control. I was just there to
point him toward areas of interest and to focus on details for clarity.
Oh, and I did contact him to confirm the spelling of the word {meqleH} at
the request of a craftsman who was dying of a very painful, degenerative
disease and who chose as his therapy to deal with the pain the project of
making one of every Klingon bladed weapon described in any Star Trek fiction
source.
If you think I abuse contact with Okrand, you are foolishly paranoid and
pathologically jealous. Ask Lawrence about the details of how the interview
was conducted and edited.
> I am utterly disgusted with this. I don't give a damn who thinks badly of
> me for losing my temper. I've put up with more garbage from you
> in the name
> of good manners than anyone should have to deal with, and I'm sick of it.
> "He thinks he's losing, and he's throwing a tantrum." Go ahead and think
> that; I don't care WHAT you think. So let's just say that this post was
> written and sent entirely in the spirit of a temper tantrum. I think I've
> earned it.
Publicly, at that. I respect that spirit enough to reply equally publicly,
but I hope with a tad less venom.
> I hope the rest of you enjoy your stay on the charghwI' Hol mailing list.
> Any time you have a question, direct it to him, because he governs what's
> allowed to be thought on the list. You'll be happy to know that
> after this
> message it should once again become a place where everybody is
> friendly and
> happy: the sort of friendliness and happiness one finds at
> gunpoint. And do
> let me know what his boots taste like; I never bowed before him. I'm not
> coming back as long as this jerk is here, and if you really think I'm the
> jerk, then you'll be pleased to see me go anyway. Go ahead and talk about
> how evil and horrible I am. You'll get it out of your system, and I won't
> know about it. Everyone wins.
If you leave, I leave. I do not wish to be considered to be a leader in any
context, even by misinterpretation.
It's a shame, too. I was starting to like it here again.
> reH lugh charghwI'. After all, Okrand said so himself.
>
> Have fun at jury duty, charghwI'.
That was vicious and quite uncalled for.
I believe in fighting for ideas, but I don't personally attack those who
disagree with me. I attack the ideas that I believe to be wrong, but I do
not wish my opponants ill will.
Even now.
charghwI'