tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 26 11:37:16 2010

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: jatlhwI'pu Holtejpu' je

Christopher Doty ([email protected]) 

On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 11:25, d'Armond Speers, Ph.D. <
[email protected]> wrote:
> (I was asking questions based upon assumptions of Universal Grammar).
>

Universal Grammar!?  Well there's your problem...

On Jan 23, 2010, at 11:59 AM, Doq wrote:
>

Frankly, I have little patience for this (although I am extremely patient in
other regards, contrary to Doq's blanket assumption that linguists are,
apparently, an impatient lot).  But your email, Doq, is so completely and
totally asinine that I can't do you the disservice of not responding to a
few of the choicer bits.


> > Again, with exceptions, the surprisingly consistent tendency is that the
> computer geeks acquire most of their skill within a year and in that time
> tend to rise to a higher level than either of the other two groups. Most of
> the flame wars on the list tend to involve the linguists. What many
> interpret to be arrogance tends to run high in this group because (again,
> with exceptions) new Klingonists who begin with a background in linguistics
> tend to have an interest in walking into a group that has been doing this
> for decades and try to "take over" the group, typically through one of two
> methods:
>

Ah, yes!  I forgot!  Computer geeks are better at EVERYTHING!  (Linguists,
on the other hand, apparently have no clue about anything.)


> > 2. Take radical interpretations of marginal points of grammar and declare
> what they "really" mean and try to ram these interpretations through, based
> on the linguistic authority of the author. As a corollary, they will also
> often extend a grammatical element far beyond its design capacity, resulting
> in utterances nobody understands, thereby failing the most elemental test of
> what constitutes language.
>

The only thing that makes them "radical" is that you disagree.


> > In both cases, the passion fueling the arguments is that the group has,
> over time, come to recognize those who understand the language well, and is
> a wee bit hesitant to recognize outside sources of authority that are
> impatient about any interest in actually earning the respect that they
> assume that they are due. The fights are, in my humble opinion, less about
> the language than they are about respect and recognition. In other words,
> ego.
>

This paragraph says far more about your own shortcomings and biases than it
does about anything else.  I joined this list because I wanted to have
people to ask questions of, who were more experienced in the language, as
you say.  But asking questions on this list, whether one is a linguist or
not, is nearly universally met with pompous arrogance by people who
obviously have nothing better to do.


> > The cultural problem with people who enter this group with a deep
> background of linguistics is rooted in their impatience to be recognized as
> remarkably skilled and deserving of exceptional authority, and their lack of
> interest in recognizing the authority of others who came by their skills
> through other paths. They have a learning disability: If the facts of the
> language that have been polished through years of use here and consultations
> with Okrand are different than what they expect from their experience in
> other areas of linguistics, then they have a great deal of difficulty
> letting go of their erroneous interpretations and listening to anyone
> explain to them how this thing actually works. It is easier to fill a void
> left by lack of understanding than it is to replace the contents of an error
> created by misunderstanding.
>

Again, this says more about you than it does about any of these "linguists."
 I'm not sure if you're aware, but there are something like 6,000 actual,
real, natural languages in the world, and every single one of them is
infinitely cooler and more subtle than Klingon; linguists get no cred from
academia for being interested in Klingon.  If you think that linguists come
here looking for acceptance from THIS group, the majority of whom (but
certainly not all) seem to be arrogant pricks who have accomplished nothing
in their lives except managing to learn Klingon, you might want to take a
look out the window once in a while; there is a much bigger world out there,
and the KLI counts for exactly squat in it.


> > It is not that linguists are not welcome here. It is that people in
> general find it easier here if you enter with a sincere interest in learning
> more than declaring. There is a difference between saying, "How does {-vaD}
> work?" vs. saying, "{-vaD} works like THIS, RIGHT?" and then arguing in many
> lengthy messages that your original interpretation absolutely must be
> correct and anyone who disagrees is simply ignorant.
>

Oh, I see!  So we shouldn't, like, try to use the language and produce our
own sentences without having cleared it with you first?


> > Linguists who already have linguistics as a source of pride and
> accomplishment in other contexts tend to come here expecting to bring all of
> that with them so that they don't have to put in those hours or even work
> very hard at learning the details of the language as it is, rather than as
> they would have made it, given their broader context of expertise. They are
> not satisfied with whatever sources of pride they have in that other world
> of linguistics. They want that recognition here, too, without having to do
> much to earn it. There's a reason for the push-back against this attitude.
> It is less cooperative than competitive and it doesn't have much traction
> here.
>

Again, this is about YOU! As you state in your (very long and thus removed
from my response as being totally irrelevant) list of life accomplishments,
you have done tech support, and learned Klingon.  Linguists do not need to
come here needing to get some sense of pride and accomplishment from you.
 As you say, they already have that.

Also, let's clear up something about Klingon right now: it is not hard.  It
is a tiny linguistic exercise.  The grammar is not complicated and there are
no irregularities.  For you to say that linguists don't put in the time is
ridiculous; compared to the amount of work that linguists working on real
languages put in, the time it takes to learn Klingon is basically nothing.


> > So, if you have any interest in the language in the long term, I'd
> suggest applying more patience and less authority. When someone explains to
> you that your interpretation of {-vaD} doesn't work, look harder at it. This
> isn't some pipsqueak with an ignorant opinion.


Are you sure?  How do you know you haven't been using it wrong?  Just
because you've been using it wrong for 20 years??? I don't follow the
argument.


> He's not arguing with you because he doesn't like you (or some other motive
> different than simply wanting to help you understand the language better).


Hah! So, this email was written in the interests of helping us understand
the language better?  Are you effing kidding me???


> > In other words, be nice, and listen to your elders.
> >
> > If you were coming into a remote village of people who speak a language
> hitherto unknown to western civilization, you would probably not be arguing
> with the natives about how the grammar works. This is kind of like that.
>

It is not at all like that, and for you to say so is the most ridiculous
thing I have ever heard.  If you were a native speaker of a real language,
it would be like that.  But you are not, and is it not.  Regardless of how
long you have spent teaching yourself this language from the short grammar
sketch that is available, you are not and never will be the kind of speaker
who warrants this kind of respect.

I would like to note one thing for the record: I have never, in my brief
time on this list, written such a tirade as this about non-linguists.  I
realize that many of you have more experience with the language than I do,
and I was looking for guidance.  But, instead, I am treated to rants such as
this.  I guess maybe I really am impatient, as I certainly have none for
this.

So, in short, thank you, Doq.  I had been continuing to study Klingon and
read the emails that come through on this list, but have also been quiet,
since everything I say seems to provoke a fight.  However, I can clearly
stop investing time in Klingon; I have little interest in learning a
language which I can only use to talk to jerks like you.

Chris

Back to archive top level