QAO

["Sean Healy" <sangqar@hotmail.com>]

>At this point, nobody has presented me with an example of QAO that makes 
>sense. They appear to make sense, looking at them from an English speaking 
>perspective, but from a Klingon perspective, they all sound twisted, based 
>upon the assumption that the {'e'} is standing in the place of the ANSWER 
>to the question, and not the question itself. Okrand has never said this is 
>okay.
<snip>
>The truth is, if Okrand ever uses QAO or explains to us how it could be 
>used, we can use it. Until then, we can't. There are too many 
>counter-examples for this to be a simple matter of "Well, it's okay to do 
>it; Okrand just hasn't gotten around to it yet."

In this sense of 'counter-example', it seems to me that the (hypothetical) 
fact that I've never seen a bird or bat means that there are no flying 
animals.  To me, saying that Okrand has not used it is not a 
counter-example.  (I guess we'll just have to disagree on this point.) The 
example I provided of the suffix {-'e'} shows that there is at least one 
thing Okrand didn't 'get around to' until after Klingon speakers began using 
it.

>Wouldn't it be better if we just learned how to speak Klingon better? If 
>that task were achieved already, we wouldn't be writing about Klingon at 
>all. We'd be writing IN Klingon. We are so far from that goal that now, 
>whenever someone DOES write something in Klingon, people complain because 
>they can't understand it.

Well, ignoring the fact that we lack the necessary vocabulary to discuss 
this kind of thing in Klingon, yes, it would be better.  And it is a pity 
that people get upset when someone writes in Klingon.

>We don't need QAO.

>That's the billboard-sized fact you ignore.

>We don't need it.

We don't need the noun 'hop' in English.  We can say 'little jump'.  That 
way lies Newspeak.  I think any language is enhanced by having multiple ways 
to express an idea.  Of course, if somebody punched me in the nose every 
time I said 'hop', I'd probably drop it from my vocabulary and stick to 
'little jump'.

Of course, that's not a very Klingon way to act.  I guess the proper Klingon 
solution to the QAO problem for those who support it would be to use it and 
let all the complainers go jump in the lake.

I don't think anything short of a prohibition from Okrand will convince me 
that QAO is invalid.  Then again, I don't think anything but an endorsement 
from Okrand will convince me to use QAO on this list.

Also, you're absolutely right that this is a purely academic debate for me.  
I don't use QAO, and I don't intend to use it unless Okrand okays it.  I 
enjoy debate and logical discourse, and linguistics is one of my hobbies.  I 
certainly don't intend to cause fragmentation in the community.  I think 
we're all mature enough to deal with disagreement.  I think we all gain by 
the open debate of this (or any other) topic.

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com