tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 20 10:30:31 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: QeD De'wI' ngermey
Nick has been able to say much more than I ever could on this topic.
However, I really feel I should point out that there are all sorts of
misconceptions about everybody's motives here.
From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>
> Never have I ever suggested changing syntax or grammar. Never have I
> suggested that random individuals create new words. Never have I ever
> said anything about making a language that was not backwards-compatible.
>
> But immediately I'm crucified for being someone looking to fracture the
> community. Maybe you've heard similar arguments too many times already,
> and I can accept that maybe some of you long-toothed Klingons are just a
> bit too quick to strike people down with the mighty Bible of Okrand. But
> what are people to take away from this? That the people who most often
> use this list have no tolerance for people who posit new ideas?
[...]
> I admire the people who've been here seemingly forever. The grammarians
> who patiently help newbies with their questions, the long-timers who shed
> new insight only possible from their wealth of experience, your
> accomplishments are amazing. Don't be so quick to judge those with
> different ideas. Several people have said to me, "Well, you should go
> ahead and write your text, just recognize that your idioms may not
> actually get used outside of your work." That gives me a hell of a lot
> more reason to try to contribute than the people who immediately come down
> with "Don't you dare try to change the language one bit, or you'll
> dishonor your family and your neighbors and your neighbor's sister's
> family."
Neither has anyone said anything like this to you. You're defending
yourself against blind accusations that never occurred, and maintain that
you never said anything equally accusatory. Sounds like the name-calling is
about to begin! :)
Let's all recognize the difference between actual intentions and hyperbole.
What it really boils down to is that Paul thinks there should be some means
for the KLI to accept usages for areas unexplained by Okrand, while some of
the rest of us say that Okrand should remain the final and absolute arbiter,
and that any additional meaning must be recognized as non-Klingon.
I would suggest that, these being our stances, Paul should continue to talk
to Lawrence regarding his ideas, and perhaps even submit an article to
HolQeD for a better audience. He should also try writing his text on
computer science using the tools already provided by Okrand. I have seen
many technical writings done in Klingon, in areas not expounded on by
Okrand, and they worked very well, even if the terminology they used only
applied when described in those texts.
SuStel
Stardate 2887.6