tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 31 18:19:32 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: it; SIS

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

From: "Alan Anderson" <[email protected]>

> [You can also give it an object and say things like the clouds rained down
> cats and dogs. ...or something like that; you get the idea.]
>
> ja' SuStel:
> >I wanted someone to say it, and stand behind it.
>
> Huh?  *Marc Okrand* (as reported by DloraH) said it!  It's been copied
here
> multiple times.  You posted it yourself two days ago.  What do you mean by
> "stand behind it"?  If it's a question of whether or not one should
believe
> DloraH's report of what Okrand told him, say so and we can discuss it.  If
> it's a question of whether or not {SIS} refers to more than the weather,
> say so and we can discuss it.
>
> (If it's a question of how you personally think {SIS} should work
> irrespective of the information we received six years ago, say so -- and
> then keep quiet.)
>
> >So is it your contention
> >that when a Klingon says /SIS/, he means /SIS 'eng/?  You're saying that
> >/'eng/ is the elided word?
>
> I am saying that, yes.  I am saying it because that's what I read in a
> reasonably authoritative account of what Marc Okrand said.
>
> >Are you sure that /chal/ doesn't /SIS/?  Are you sure that /Dung/ doesn't
> >/SIS/?  Could it be that any or all of these are possible, and the reason
> >for the elided word in the common phrase is that it generally doesn't
matter
> >which of these it is?
>
> If you want to talk about something other than the "science class"
> understanding of where rain comes from, you're welcome to do so.  I won't
> object to anyone's using {SIS} in a more figurative sense, with something
> other than the literal clouds perhaps producing something other than
> literal rain.
>
> But according to what we were told six years ago, there *is* a definite
> something which rains.  That role is filled by "the clouds" in the
extended
> example we are given.
>
> >Why is /SIS/ (and, presumably, the other weather
> >words) singled out for special it's-too-obvious-to-say treatment?
>
> What "special it's-too-obvious-to-say treatment"?  It looks to me like
> *you* are the one singling out {SIS} as something "we" don't know how to
> use, ignoring the evidence telling us how to use it, and seeming not to
see
> how it's used the past few times it has been quoted here (even though you
> quoted it directly from the original note by DloraH in 1998).
>
> >And why is there such resistance to considering this on the list?
>
> Who's resisting what here?  You're the one who keeps insisting that the
> subject of {SIS} is unknown to us.  You're the one who challenges what
> Okrand himself is reported to have said.  You're the one who calls for the
> subject to be stated explicitly even after posting it yourself.
>
> So far as I can tell, the resistance is yours.  Only you can answer why.



You know, you have seriously pissed me off here.  You've completely removed
the context of my point, and gone on to be really prissy.

I do not find DloraH's second-hand account of Okrand's words to be
completely reliable.  This is not to say that I don't trust DloraH's
memory -- it's a second-hand account, so the exact wording of the
information can't be analyzed too closely.  And because the wording IS
rather roundabout to begin with, I naturally (I thought) wondered whether
the elided subject of /SIS/ really MUST BE /'eng/.

So when the topic came up, I asked someone to tell me what the subject of
/'eng/ is -- and all anybody could do was say it was so obvious that it's
not mentioned.  Nobody -- at all -- actually declared the oh-so-obvious
subject of /SIS/ until you finally screamed /'eng/.  I think everybody was
dancing around actually answering the question because they weren't sure.
That sounds like community uncertainty to me, and worthy of discussion.

I don't know what bug crawled up your ass recently, but take it out right
now.  If you're not interested in talking about it, don't.  And don't accuse
me of misinforming people, because if it's as well-documented and obvious as
you say, then why should they believe little ol' me?  Geez.

SuStel
Stardate: 4249.4

Back to archive top level