tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 18 13:48:31 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hol ghojlu''a'?
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Hol ghojlu''a'?
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 18:47:37 GMT
qaDISlaw'. tlhIngan Hol wIlo'taHvIS, mangach, 'ach DaH DIvI' Hol Dalo'choH.
tlhIngan Hol vIlo'taH 'e' vImaS. tlhIngan Hol wIlo'be'taHvIS, ma*lecture*taHvIS
loQ *off topic* wIghoS.
> 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.
bIHub'eghchu'. maj.
> -qu' does not mean "very much", but indicates emphasis (see TKD 4.3).
The phrase "very much" indicates emphasis.
> The verb pab does take a direct object, cf.
> "tlhIngan tIgh Dapabchu'" on PK and "qorDu' lurDechmeyna' pab
> tlhInganpu'" on Skybox 13.
bIlughchu'. mu' tetlhwIj vIQulchugh ngoDvam vItu'ta', 'ach vIQulbe'ba'. HIvqa'
veqlargh!
> Otherwise, I thank you for the correct criticisms you offered,
> particularly those of a linguistic nature. :)
qay'be'.
> However, since you compared me to Proechel, I feel a great urgency to
> respond further. :)
You have a point.
> 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.
'ach naDev nger maqlu'DI' ngervetlh pab 'op taghwI'pu'. ghojwI'pu' DevHa'
ngervetlh.
> 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.
wejpuH. 'ej nger vIqonDI' jIH, mutIch SuStel ghunchu'wI' je. qarHa' 'oH 'e'
lumaq. pab DelmeH mu'mey nuDchu' chaH 'ej loQ Qoch TKD, ngerwIj je 'e' lunoH.
jISaHbe'.
> 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.
SuStel ghunchu'wI' je tIja'.
> Even if the theory is wrong, that kind of criticism assumes the
> theorist will rely more on their own theory than on canon.
jIQoch. nger lulo' latlhpu''e' 'e' vIHaj. ngerqoq qonbogh qoH'e' vISaHbe'.
ghojwI''e' DevHa'bogh nger vISaHqu'.
> 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).
SuStel ghunchu'wI' tIja'.
> 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.
toH *intelligible criticism* DanoblaH 'ej vInoblaHbe' 'e' DapIH'a'?
> 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. :)
chaq Hegh.
> 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.
meqwIj Dayaj 'e' Da*presume*qu'.
qaSpa' qep'a' SochDIch muja' SuStel. jatlh <<qa'oy'moHchugh, jIbel. qa'oy'moH
vIneHqu'. jImujchugh, jISaHbe'. ram. qatIch. potlh. jItlhIjQo'.>>
vaj SuStel vIbelHa'chugh, jISaHbe'. qoH ghaHtaH. mujba'chugh, wo' naQ vIja'.
jI*be polite*nISbe'. rut vIparHa'. rut vIpar. Hoch jaj jIwuq. jItlhab.
mu'oy'moH rut neH. mu'oy'moH rut neHbe'. Hoch jaj wuq. tlhab. jupwI' ghaHbe'.
rut jaghwI' ghaH. rut jaghwI' ghaHbe'. laHlIj vIvuv, 'ach qavoqbe'.
Dogh ngerDaj wIqelbogh maja'chuqDI'. jI*be politically correct*nISbe'.
> --
> Andrew Strader
charghwI'