tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 20 11:31:37 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: QeD De'wI' ngermey

At 11:32 20/11/2002 -0500, lab Paul:

>That the people who most often
>use this list have no tolerance for people who posit new ideas?

I think it's more like the peer review system for scientific work.  It 
keeps the system stable.  For an idea to be accepted, it has to be 
intelligently, logically and persistently presented by someone who is very 
familiar with the existing canon.  There are a number of ideas that HAVE 
made it through the filter this way, and they make the language 
better.   The first test of an idea is whether you can defend it using the 
existing rules and examples.  Usually the last step is asking Marc, "have 
we got this right?"  That's the last step, because his is the last word.

Some examples I can remember:

* using -meH in order to modify a noun with a non-stative verb is a 
relatively recent innovation.  There is an example in TKW, I believe, but 
it took a while for someone to pick up on it, argue for its general use, 
and have people accept it.  The cannonical example is ghojmeH taj - a 
beginner's knife

* realizing that the words spoken are not the object of jatlh.  bImaw' 
jIjatlh.  Not bImaw vIjatlh.

* using conjunctions with more than two nouns

It's true that the system is biased towards the opinions of the people who 
have gained respect through a long-standing presence in the group.  It's 
also biased towards those who are articulate, conservative, spend a lot of 
time with the language, and who put their opinions forward forcefully.  I'd 
say that was a pretty good list of the criteria I'd look for in choosing 
who should influence the language.

I know that this system is not just an old Klingons network, because I was 
accepted for my own skills, not my duration of presence, and in turn I have 
done the same with others.

Back to archive top level