tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Oct 28 18:27:07 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: intuition and grammar (was Re: Ditransitive reflexives)

Tracy Canfield (toastrix@gmail.com)



Doch Qob je Doch Hurgh ghoSvIp?a? tlhIngan?   Gracious me.
2009/10/28 Steven Lytle <lytlesw@gmail.com>
> It's safer to walk around a hole than to jump in. We don't know how deep
> the
> holes are, and they're difficult to illuminate.
> lay'tel SIvten
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 7:56 AM, ghunchu'wI' <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 28, 2009, at 3:48 AM, eric mead wrote:
> >
> > > And that actually brings me to my larger question. What happens in
> > > the culture of tlhIngan Hol if there is found an area of the
> > > grammar that seems problematic and/or just missing and the fluent
> > > speakers have an intuition (generally agreed upon) about it?? Does
> > > that become another resource? Or are speakers not 'allowed' to add
> > > their own intuitions to the grammar?
> >
> > Speakers can use whatever intuition or pet theories or personal
> > preferences they want.  However, nobody here has the authority to add
> > anything to the grammar.  If what someone says makes sense, others
> > are free to adopt its use as well.  If it isn't in conflict with the
> > officially published rules of the language, it might even become
> > widely popular.  Even so, there will usually be some who are more
> > conservative and resist trendy things until and unless they are
> > sanctioned by Marc Okrand.
> >
> > The basic goal is for someone to be able to learn Klingon well using
> > only the published books as a resource.  Where there's a hole in the
> > grammar (e.g. subjunctive), the basic advice is to avoid it, not to
> > fill it.
> >
> > -- ghunchu'wI'
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>





Back to archive top level