[111442] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] DSC Klingon Trailer transcription (NOT offlist)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Fri Oct 6 05:01:09 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 15:32:24 -0400
In-Reply-To: <ac589d26-2722-36f1-4b72-3287080e205d@gmx.de>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============8276530713310652734==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------991CDE5DF34B7166FFF64B36"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------991CDE5DF34B7166FFF64B36
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 10/4/2017 3:03 PM, Lieven wrote:
> Am 04.10.2017 um 20:54 schrieb SuStel:
>> If we cannot solve this ourselves without input from Maltz, then how
>> do you justify using it in the transcript and calling it correct?
>
> Just as much as you justify it is NOT correct.
I justify it on the basis of how people communicate. If you have three
Men and a Baby, and you say Man One and Man Two changed the Baby, there
is a very strong implication that Man Three did not change the Baby. If
Man Three does change the Baby too but in some special way that requires
special explanation that won't fit here, you say, at the very least,
"Man Three changed the Baby too, but this requires explanation elsewhere."
And EVEN if we agreed that the prefix trick is not explicitly barred
from using third-person object prefixes, you STILL don't know (a)
whether they're allowed at all, and (b) under what special circumstances
they're allowed, if they're allowed. If they're allowed at all, there
HAVE to be special circumstances, some special explanation that makes
them stand apart from the first- and second-person prefixes, and you
have no idea what that explanation might be. How do you apply the prefix
trick using special rules if you don't know what those rules are?
Finally, if third-person prefix trick is a thing, where are all the
examples that should naturally have popped up over the years? We have
tons of first- and second-person examples; why no third-person examples?
Sure, lack of evidence of a thing is not evidence of a lack of a thing,
but adding "suspicious" to everything above is perfectly reasonable.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------991CDE5DF34B7166FFF64B36
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/4/2017 3:03 PM, Lieven wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ac589d26-2722-36f1-4b72-3287080e205d@gmx.de">Am
04.10.2017 um 20:54 schrieb SuStel:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">If we cannot solve
this ourselves without input from Maltz, then how do you justify
using it in the transcript and calling it correct? </blockquote>
<br>
Just as much as you justify it is NOT correct.</blockquote>
<p>I justify it on the basis of how people communicate. If you have
three Men and a Baby, and you say Man One and Man Two changed the
Baby, there is a very strong implication that Man Three did not
change the Baby. If Man Three does change the Baby too but in some
special way that requires special explanation that won't fit here,
you say, at the very least, "Man Three changed the Baby too, but
this requires explanation elsewhere."</p>
<p>And EVEN if we agreed that the prefix trick is not explicitly
barred from using third-person object prefixes, you STILL don't
know (a) whether they're allowed at all, and (b) under what
special circumstances they're allowed, if they're allowed. If
they're allowed at all, there HAVE to be special circumstances,
some special explanation that makes them stand apart from the
first- and second-person prefixes, and you have no idea what that
explanation might be. How do you apply the prefix trick using
special rules if you don't know what those rules are?<br>
</p>
<p>Finally, if third-person prefix trick is a thing, where are all
the examples that should naturally have popped up over the years?
We have tons of first- and second-person examples; why no
third-person examples? Sure, lack of evidence of a thing is not
evidence of a lack of a thing, but adding "suspicious" to
everything above is perfectly reasonable.</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------991CDE5DF34B7166FFF64B36--
--===============8276530713310652734==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============8276530713310652734==--
