tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jun 20 20:28:17 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Once more into the ship in which I fled

McArdle ([email protected]) 

The only thing I can say about this was that I wasn't trying to be disrespectful, authoritarian or presumptuous.  If what I wrote came off that way, it's probably because (or, perhaps, "I hope it's because . . .") I was trying to be clear and thorough.  I will admit to some enthusiasm for the "resumptive pronoun" idea itself, but not to a desire for acknowledgement of "obvious genius and superior insight".  I certainly recognize that only MO has the authority to add features to the language, but I thought it would be interesting to have a discussion with well-informed people about what they thought of the idea, how well it might fit in with known principles of Klingon grammar, whether it conflicts with canon (an area where I am particularly ill-informed), and so on.  The last thing I wanted to do was cause offense.

Hey, guys, here's this cool idea.  Can we talk about it?

mI'qey

--- On Sat, 6/20/09, Doq <[email protected]> wrote:

> From: Doq <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Once more into the ship in which I fled
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Saturday, June 20, 2009, 5:22 PM
> Weighing in late on this one...
> 
> The idea is interesting. If you'd like to discuss it as an
> interesting  
> idea, presenting it in a less presumptive style would
> probably have  
> been more successful.
> 
> Presenting it in a lengthy, well-reasoned, but
> excessively  
> authoritarian style makes it seem like you wish to either
> have the  
> idea accepted whole cloth without modification, or you are
> ready for a  
> flame-fest.
> 
> Holtej has more than a history in this group. He has a
> very  
> respectful, unassuming attitude. When he speaks, he
> actually does seek  
> discussion more than either "respect for his obvious genius
> and  
> superior insight" or a fight.
> 
> I respect his diplomacy. He is far better at it than I am.
> I aspire to  
> improve toward his superior example.
> 
> Meanwhile, it is quite true that your idea has no authority
> behind it.  
> Okrand could make it true with a wave of his magic wand,
> like the word  
> {'I'}. Or not. The rest of us can't.
> 
> People who try to append the grammar and usurp Okrand's
> position as  
> the single authority over it have come and gone through the
> years on  
> this list. For the most part, they don't last. Those who
> remain, for  
> the most part, have fun with the language and accept the
> grammar as it  
> is given to us.
> 
> Also, as it has been pointed out, you are fixing something
> that isn't  
> broken. We can express the ideas you are trying to
> translate with more  
> than one sentence. This is quite normal in Klingon, as
> Okrand said in  
> the original description of the grammar in the first
> version of TKD.  
> It's quite normal to repeat words in Klingon where you
> wouldn't in  
> English, and to translate single, complex sentences in
> English into  
> multiple simpler ones in Klingon.
> 
> Your idea is interesting in a meta-Klingon sort of way, but
> it will  
> not become an accepted grammatical construction until
> Okrand  
> explicitly accepts it. Likely, he would not do so unless he
> either  
> felt a need to expand the grammar beyond his current
> description of it  
> (ghaytanHa') or if it were presented to him in a way that
> appealed to  
> him.
> 
> Unfortunately for you, the idea isn't funny in a way that
> fits the  
> sense of humor that dominates much of Okrand's approach to
> Klingon. He  
> had fun making up this language. He has had a lot of fun
> appending it.  
> Just look at his words for "birds" of various kinds. He
> added piloting  
> terms out of respect for the loyalty that one particular
> pilot had  
> shown to the language. It was a friendly thing to do.
> 
> Okrand is friendly and witty. He's not authoritarian and
> doesn't have  
> a lot of interest in those who approach the language in
> an  
> authoritarian way. He did this to have fun and to offer
> that fun to  
> others. Check out any of his interviews (like the radio
> show where his  
> translation of the Klingon word for "goodbye" was the sound
> of his  
> chair scraping the floor as he pulled it back, stood up and
> walked  
> away).
> 
> He probably made a few bucks while he was at it, none of
> which were  
> unearned.
> 
> Enjoy the language. Don't try to own part of it. Paramount
> has lawyers  
> who don't like that, either.
> 
> Lighten up. This isn't a joust. It's a cooperative
> venture.
> 
> Doq
> 
> On Jun 20, 2009, at 4:35 PM, McArdle wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Sat, 6/20/09, David Trimboli <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: David Trimboli <[email protected]>
> >> Subject: Re: Once more into the ship in which I
> fled
> >> To: [email protected]
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > In its own way, this is fascinating.  The
> responses to my suggestion  
> > have mostly clustered around "you're wasting your time
> with this."   
> > The last time this topic was raised (by Holtej last
> October), there  
> > were a number of responses discussing the merits of
> his proposal,  
> > and none at all suggesting that the whole discussion
> was pointless.   
> > 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).
> >
> > I understand that Holtej has a history and a standing
> with the group  
> > that I don't, but still the difference in the
> responses is curious.
> >
> > Qapla'
> >
> > mI'qey
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Back to archive top level