tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 20 15:59:52 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Once more into the ship in which I fled
David Trimboli (email@example.com)
>> From: David Trimboli <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: Once more
>> into the ship in which I fled To: email@example.com Date:
>> Saturday, June 20, 2009, 9:13 AM McArdle wrote:
>>> That strikes me as less a solution than a
>> rationalization for not
>>> finding a solution.
>> No, it's a solution which says that Klingon doesn't do what you're
>> asking at all, or at least if there's a way it is unknown and
>> probably unknowable without input from Okrand.
> You yourself mentioned that MO hadn't found a way to solve the
> problem, but went on to leave the door open by adding "I don't think
> that comes directly from Maltz, however." I took this as an
> indication that the question was still open and further discussion
> might be warranted (or, at the very least, not actively rebuffed).
There's what Okrand says, and then there's what Okrand gets from Maltz.
When it comes from Maltz, it's fact, period (though Maltz is a ship's
helmsman, not a linguist, and is prone to being vague or erroneous).
When it comes from Okrand but not Maltz, it's usually wishy-washy, as is
his statement about not being able to form a relative clause with a head
noun as something other than the subject or object of the relative clause.
If Okrand had said, "Nope. Can't be done. No way," we may assume that
his certainty is informed from his conversations with Maltz. But a
wishy-washy answer must be considered guardedly. So Okrand's answer in
this case means that he doesn't *think* it can be done, but it doesn't
rule out the possibility that Maltz will come forward sometime and point
out a way to do it.