tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 21 10:52:33 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: comparatives
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: comparatives
- Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 15:51:54 GMT
> charghwI' writes:
> >You really are extending the grammar farther than it goes. Comparatives
> >are extremely simple. They are one trick ponies. You are trying to get them
> >to do more tricks than they can handle, according to Klingon norms.
Others have revealed canon disproving my honest belief about the limits of
comparatives. I believe that there was a point in the history of the language
when I was at least partly right, but the canon since then shows a shift in the
load that comparatives can carry. Okrand has quite clearly stated that usage
takes precidence over stated rules, and I interpret that to mean that newer
canon tends to be more important than older canon.
I think this is also true because Okrand is simply getting better at using his
own language. In the earlier years, clearly Krankor, ~mark and a few others,
possibly including myself, could speak the language better than Okrand could.
I'm less sure this is true now. The newer the canon, the more confidence I tend
to have in it.
reH Suvrup SuvwI''a'. I will still state that the more complex a sentence is,
the less clear to the largest audience, and the more rare, considering that
Okrnand has explained that Klingons very much prefer to use more, shorter,
simpler sentences rather than fewer, longer, more complex ones.
You are not wrong. The question then becomes, are you effective? I'll leave
that for you to answer.
Will
> As I always try to consider your points, rest assured you are
understood.> But
> I still feel there's something to address, and I'm not sure how. Is it
an>
> issue of grammaticality? I don't think so, since my sentence *is*
> grammatical. If it weren't, I know you would have shown me the specific
> problem. The examples Voragh posted showed that Klingon comparatives
inde> ed
> do contain relatively complex noun phrases in their A and B positions. I
> think the issue is probably one of complexity. But seriously, all I did
w> as
> put relative clauses in with the nouns under comparison. Is *that*
really> so
> horrendously complicated? Consider that the English translation of my
> sentence was exactly as grammatically complex as the Klingon, and *it*
> wouldn't have won any awards for obfuscation. I concur that what I write
> may
> be very complex. But to call it "too" complex is strictly opinion. Just
> because a list member fails to comprehend a particular Klingon sentence
a> t
> first sight, that's no reason to consider it "too" complex.
..
> --
> Andrew
Strader