tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 18 10:45:31 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Hol ghojlu''a'?
- From: Andrew Strader <[email protected]>
- Subject: Hol ghojlu''a'?
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 15:44:28 +0000
- Organization: Decode
qon charghwI':
>> Hol wIlo'qu'taHvIS ngugh pabmey
>> wISovtaH 'ej DIpab, 'ach ngermey DIqellI'meH matlhab. ghovuSQo'.
[...]
>"While we very much use language, at that time, we knowing [sic - singular
>object] grammars and we follow the rules [probably intransitive, but now
with
>plural direct object], but in order that we are considering [progressing to
a
>foreseeable goal] theories, we are free."
Your act of criticism is welcome and mostly helpful, but at least ensure that
your criticism rests on sound Hol. -qu' does not mean "very much", but
indicates emphasis (see TKD 4.3). The verb pab does take a direct object, cf.
"tlhIngan tIgh Dapabchu'" on PK and "qorDu' lurDechmeyna' pab tlhInganpu'" on
Skybox 13. Otherwise, I thank you for the correct criticisms you offered,
particularly those of a linguistic nature. :)
However, since you compared me to Proechel, I feel a great urgency to respond
further. :)
In saying "HIvuSQo'", Glen was presumably talking about his desire to do
whatever he felt like *in* the language. That alone was reason enough to
alienate him from the group. My point, on the other hand, is that speculation
*about* the language should be a free matter. What I was trying to say in
Klingon is that *we* (speculative types) know the grammar and will follow it,
but that doesn't mean we have to be limited from theorizing about it. If
people want to deal in theories, fine, let them. It's worthless to try to
criticize someone's theory by cooking up grammatical mistakes you think they
might make. Even if the theory is wrong, that kind of criticism assumes the
theorist will rely more on their own theory than on canon. Even if that's
what they do, it's a simple enough matter to point out their eventual flaw by
comparing their actual usage to the appropriate canonical example. (If it
isn't such a simple matter to do so, then the theory needs to be taken more
seriously). In general you have to understand someone's theory well before an
intelligible criticism can be offered. That's not what I have seen going on.
Ultimately if someone does in fact refer to their own theories or
speculations to justify what's contradictory to canon.... Well, we all know
what happens then.... Just ask Proechel, if you can ever find him. :) It's
just that the whole eruption in the "headers" thread was completely
uncalled-for. It was the kind of thing that results from one's desire to be
unquestionably right at the cost of having an intelligent discussion.
--
Andrew Strader