tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 14 18:44:37 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Headers. Yet again.
[Lengthy text snipped to pieces.]
From: <[email protected]>
> > 2) A noun with a Type 5 suffix (with exceptions) comes before the
object.
>
> This is a descriptive rule about the grammar which happens to be true
whether
> it is in TKD or not. You and SuStel both want to argue that I'm basing
this
> descriptive rule upon the rule mentioned in TKD.
Wrong. I argue that this is a very good descriptive rule, capable of
guiding us toward suitable sentences, but that it's not totally true. It's
like using Newtonian mechanics instead of Relativity to figure out the
behavior of a billiards ball: extremely useful, but not the "truth." /-'e'/
and
I'm also NOT saying that my argument MUST BE TRUE, but that it certainly
makes a hell of a lot more sense! I just can't help responding whenever you
put words in my mouth, especially when they're totally wrong.
I am . . . ahem . . . observing canon, INCLUDING the exceptions, and
deriving a descriptive rule.
> There are two exceptions to this.
Exceptions = Usually. Okrand says "usually." "Usually" is our friend.
> This is a descriptive rule of the grammar, whether it is explicit in TKD
or
> not. Do you really want to argue to say that it is not accurate? Are you
really
> so afraid to wander beyond the explicit wording in TKD, even when Okrand
tells
> us that the rules as stated in TKD are less important than usage in canon?
Umm . . . what I'm saying is the less restrictive of the two philosophies.
My argument includes and explains all of yours, plus the so-called
"exceptions," plus any new stuff that Okrand might come up with in the
future that seems to violate yours.
> Okrand has broken the rules he states in TKD quite a few times, quite
often in
> ways that we think are quite natural. We want to use Type 7 verb suffixes
on
> verbs with {-jaj}.
"We" do not.
>We want to use Type 7 verb suffixes on the second verb of
> SAO.
"We" most certainly do not. Until "we" are given an explanation of Okrand's
violations, "I" will assume they are special cases: errors; special, as-yet
unknown grammar; intentional ungrammaticality; whatever. TKD represents
"what Klingon grammarians agree on as the 'best' Klingon" (TKD 9).
> We want to finish a sentence with {tu'lu'}, even when the direct object is
> plural and we know it should be {lutu'lu'} because {tu'lu'} has basically
> become a fossilized way to end a sentence,
Okrand does much to explain this behavior in KGT as a common error. TKD
also points it out in isolation, suggesting that it may indeed be a special
case, so when "we" use /tu'lu'/ apparently against the rules, "we" are
abiding by what appears in TKD. The example sentence is /naDev puqpu'
tu'lu'/ (TKD 39). The example itself seems to be a violation.
> Okrand does these things repeatedly, and we become less attached
> to the exact wording of what Okrand has said are the descriptive, not
> prescriptive, rules in TKD.
And you accused me of being obsesssive. How cute! :)
> Since the rules describe the grammar as it is observed by Maltz,
While Maltz was clearly the primary source, Okrand claims, as I pointed out
above, that TKD represents what "Klingon grammarians" agree on as the best
Klingon.
> there is
> nothing wrong with noticing consistent patterns in examples and making new
> generalities, so long as they remain obviously consistent over the years.
My new generality is quite consistent. Yours isn't: it has exceptions.
Your argument: "You can't do that."
My argument: "You can do that, but you probably won't want to."
(This is fun! Care for another go? :D )
SuStel
Stardate 2453.1