tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 14 06:24:25 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Why Do You Study Klingon?

Alan Anderson ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

jIHubmeH ('ej vIt vIHubmeH) PaulDaq jabbI'ID tIn vIngeH.  Do'Ha'  
lajQo' De'wI'Daj; DaH "spammer" jIH 'e' Harlaw'.  quvHa'bej tovam.   
wejpuH.  mu'meywIj Qoy neHbe'ba' ghaH.

toH, tlhIHvaD jabbI'IDwIj naQ vImuchqa'be'.  'ach potlhmo' qech puS  
naDev 'ay' puS vIlab.

On Jan 13, 2007, at 2:13 PM, ...Paul wrote:
> It took forever for me to get you to give your theory that the  
> prefixless and /-lu'/less purpose clauses were simply the use of a  
> "raw verb",...

I posted my first message in the thread at 2:29 PM on December 31.   
In my second message, posted at 9:26 PM that same day, I wrote "I  
only see one assumption: a verb-meH modifying a noun may be a bare  
verb with no subject or object."

I believe seven hours falls quite short of being reasonably labeled  
as "forever".

> You seem to think my goal is to change the language myself.  That  
> is entirely not the case.

Perhaps I misunderstood your message yesterday, but it seemed pretty  
clear: "There is really only one point I can think of for continuing  
to use the language, and that is to expand it.  The return on  
investment is the feeling that you've done something to contribute to  
the evolution of the language."

It sure looks like you want to be part of changing the language.  How  
else can I interpret what you said?

> It's obvious you have no understanding of anything I say, for  
> whatever reason.  All I wanted to do with purpose clauses was to  
> come to a concensus as to what is going on with some of the canon  
> which isn't explained adequately by any of the grammatical rules we  
> know.  Somehow that suddenly became equated with "changing" the  
> language, and we all know how you feel about that.

It's not your desire to come to an agreement on purpose claues that  
makes me think you want to change the language.  What makes me think  
that is your statement that you want to help it expand and evolve.

> When I say that my interest in Klingon is in learning the  
> linguistic aspects and that, if the grammar doesn't change, then  
> the language has  reached the end of its usefulness for me, you  
> pass judgment on me, an attitude that really just reinforces my low  
> opinion of you.

Here I see again your desire to change Klingon.  If my repeated  
complaints about doing so make you think less of me, that too shows  
that you disagree with the idea that Klingon should not be changed by  
those who study it.  Since you obviously think little of my goals, I  
am unconcerned that you think little of me.  On the contrary, it  
indicates that I am pursuing my goals successfully.

Back to archive top level