tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 25 11:22:59 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: The topic marker -'e'
- From: Christopher Doty <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: The topic marker -'e'
- Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:50:58 -0800
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=Yw3cquepX4+A2hqgqti42HqZdrUEkJw+WayHS8QmMvs=; b=ERV3uQWFSe/H5nCJ5CFr+zqZL8t5HfbhaGHppy39hexonZoVDN89ADcYh9jDASxswf 0rl/mDwwGau3GOLaJoGpTSWoswT1PVL6jEBEvOKeU0f4PTWUiZmkCWr5aqhjiXP7qGaQ fJ3FnsW7DSibM87RM1J8dVT8Kl1rHrPWdKEyE=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=M96dUVEQ9+GCnHs/91/gVt4OGibvpixRh3xnqpMdYfQ11bIpXlRF77oVOi1iILI5PR 0sspaQQf7TzfzowOzc0a8itPM8dvSpcuT2vxl0FvvCUhB6wqRYnFSNjnoY5ZHTDX+WCH 37e2f/kJ3aPyin7tBm5EuL2YR6ZMOL/y6G9WA=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Amen and +1.
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:23, David Trimboli <[email protected]> wrote:
> So what makes Klingon linguistically unanalyzable, while every other
> language can be analyzed?
>
> Most of the world's languages are *not* like Latin. Serious linguists no
> longer treat them as if they were. If someone uses inappropriate
> terminology or classifications to describe Klingon, they should be
> corrected, not condemned. No one is claiming that Klingon falls neatly
> into any linguistic categories. But it *can* be analyzed linguistically,
> and doing so is interesting, enlightening, and harmless.
>
> Not everyone is interested in Klingon purely as a mode of communication.
> Most either come to it through Star Trek or through linguistic interest.
> The Trekkies usually find out it's actually hard work, and give up after
> a while. The linguists run into the wall of "You can't analyze Klingon"
> here on this list, mostly coming from you, or those who ape you.
>
> Analyzing the language is a perfectly valid activity to engage in on
> this list, and you're single-handedly trying to quash it, apparently
> because you're afraid of anybody drawing any conclusions that don't
> agree with yours. Why not just let people theorize? Why is that so
> awful? Even if the come up with the wrong answers, why is that so bad?
>
> --
> SuStel
> tlhIngan Hol MUSH
> http://trimboli.name/mush
>
>
>
>