tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat May 12 07:29:23 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: *Paramount* chaw'
Others have quite effectively responded to most of this. I can only add a
couple minor points.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: chris [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 10:49 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: *Paramount* chaw'
> > >...I suspect most on this list worship Okrand and would ignore your new
> > >word.
> >
> > The term "worship" is rather stronger than I'd put it.
>
> From the flames I've received, both public and private, I'd beg to
> differ. I stand by my original phrasing.
Why do you care? Could it be that you'd rather have us worship you? Few
people take your perspective without an unusual desire to become leaders,
essentially wanting to plagerize all of Okrand's work and then tag on a
paultry few little additions and try to claim greatness for filling a need
nobody else agreed that we needed.
> > I prefer to call it "respect".
>
> Duly earned respect, I might add. Okrand created a beautiful language.
> It is wonderfully concise compared to English. (like comparing C++ to
> Pascal) Not many people could create a new language with its alphabet,
> grammar, syntax, vocabulary, and history and have it all come together
> and work as well as he has done. If anyone wishes to leave final
> authority to him, I can understand that and in fact, I implied as much
> in that they would ignore new words not from Okrand.
So, then, why are you bothering us with your unoriginal, ineffective
suggestion?
> > One does not paint eyebrows on the Mona Lisa, run _Finnegan's
> > Wake_ through a spelling checker, or glue earrings on
> Michelangelo's David.
>
> Sure we do. A town in Florida a week or so ago made a shopkeeper put a
> "loincloth" on a copy of David outside his store because it was deemed
> indecent. Mona Lisa sells macaroni and her mug graces every box. And
> industrious souls in our midst have claimed Shakespeare as their own,
> reworking it in this very language. Nothing is sacred, including
> Okrand.
You are in danger of becoming a cult with only one member.
> If the fellow in question invents a good word that I find useful, I
> may indeed use it. However, If the new word is unnecessary or
> unacceptable I would dump it in a heartbeat. For example, I cannot
> bring myself to use the impossibly corny (but Okrandian) chang'eng for
> pair, and rewrite my sentences as necessary to avoid it.
My word list has 193 words catagorized as puns. Those are just the ones I've
figured out. Some are rather obscure.
...
> And if a name is not a word, I'll eat mine.
'ey ponglIj 'e' vItul.
> QIS
charghwI' 'utlh