[111981] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Using -ta' during -taHvIS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Wed Feb 27 11:40:49 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 11:40:43 -0500
In-Reply-To: <3C72286E-9006-4CFC-B129-42760E5BDBE7@mac.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============1944733959680845675==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------81E4599788890D4EDCB4BC96"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------81E4599788890D4EDCB4BC96
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 2/27/2019 10:46 AM, Will Martin wrote:
> We all hate the rule.
Speak for yourself, not others. I don't hate the rule; I think it adds
character to the language.
> In terms of the grammar being internally consistent and making sense
> and offering the most broad expressive capability, this rule stinks
> enough that even Okrand breaks it from time to time. I personally
> think it’s forgivable to let those exceptions in canon trump the rule,
> making it obsolete, so we can say, “Yeah, that’s an old grammar rule
> that people often ignore,” like the way in English, as years pass,
> people never use “whom”, but instead use “who” for either subject or
> object.
Don't speak for Klingons, either. You don't know that this is the
Klingon equivalent of /whom./ You can't go declaring that it's
disappearing from Klingon because you don't like it. Okrand has given us
some indication of language change in /KGT,/ and perfective on the
second verb is not one of the things he says is happening.
> Yes, the English rule definitely still exists, and you really should
> say, “To whom are you speaking?” instead of “Who are you speaking
> to?”, but if somebody says the latter, everybody understands them, and
> most of the time, to be polite, you don’t even point out the technical
> error(s).
You're being a prescriptivist. You're declaring a rule imposed on a
language by some entity. The fiction of Klingon is that it's a real
language and that Okrand is our conduit through which we learn how it
works. In that fiction, TKD and KGT are descriptions of how Klingon is
actually spoken, not prescriptions for the language, and not style guides.
English /whom/ is disappearing from the language. It is so far removed
from the language that it's perfectly acceptable in many circumstances
not to use it. That's not a violation; that's the language.
There was a short-lived sequel series to /Babylon 5/ called /Crusade./
The opening sequence of this show drove me mad, because it twice had a
character asking in melodramatic tones, "Who do you serve, and who do
you trust?" /WHOM! It's WHOM, you stupid show!/ But there we are.
> It’s good to have the rule to explain the past, but I don’t think
> anybody should feel TOO attached to the rule for the future.
Please cite the canonical evidence that shows that this rule is
disappearing from the language.
> It’s like the English word “ain’t”. We know it’s not proper, but it
> works, and EVERYBODY knows HOW it works.
/Ain't/ is completely proper in the correct dialects. A style guide may
tell you not to use it, but that doesn't make it wrong. There are
circumstances where, if you said /isn't/ instead of /ain't,/ you'd
actually be wrong to do so.
Take, for instance, the famous phrase "Ain't nobody got time for that."
In the dialect spoken by Sweet Brown, that is a completely acceptable
and proper sentence. She could not have said "Nobody has time for that"
in her dialect; it would mark her as not belonging. Her dialect, and
many others like it, have known rules that are as grammatically
consistent as Standard American English.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------81E4599788890D4EDCB4BC96
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<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 2/27/2019 10:46 AM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3C72286E-9006-4CFC-B129-42760E5BDBE7@mac.com">
<div class="">We all hate the rule.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Speak for yourself, not others. I don't hate the rule; I think it
adds character to the language.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3C72286E-9006-4CFC-B129-42760E5BDBE7@mac.com">
<div class="">In terms of the grammar being internally consistent
and making sense and offering the most broad expressive
capability, this rule stinks enough that even Okrand breaks it
from time to time. I personally think it’s forgivable to let
those exceptions in canon trump the rule, making it obsolete, so
we can say, “Yeah, that’s an old grammar rule that people often
ignore,” like the way in English, as years pass, people never
use “whom”, but instead use “who” for either subject or object.
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Don't speak for Klingons, either. You don't know that this is the
Klingon equivalent of <i>whom.</i> You can't go declaring that
it's disappearing from Klingon because you don't like it. Okrand
has given us some indication of language change in <i>KGT,</i>
and perfective on the second verb is not one of the things he says
is happening.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3C72286E-9006-4CFC-B129-42760E5BDBE7@mac.com">
<div class="">Yes, the English rule definitely still exists, and
you really should say, “To whom are you speaking?” instead of
“Who are you speaking to?”, but if somebody says the latter,
everybody understands them, and most of the time, to be polite,
you don’t even point out the technical error(s).</div>
</blockquote>
<p>You're being a prescriptivist. You're declaring a rule imposed on
a language by some entity. The fiction of Klingon is that it's a
real language and that Okrand is our conduit through which we
learn how it works. In that fiction, TKD and KGT are descriptions
of how Klingon is actually spoken, not prescriptions for the
language, and not style guides.<br>
</p>
<p>English <i>whom</i> is disappearing from the language. It is so
far removed from the language that it's perfectly acceptable in
many circumstances not to use it. That's not a violation; that's
the language.</p>
<p>There was a short-lived sequel series to <i>Babylon 5</i> called
<i>Crusade.</i> The opening sequence of this show drove me mad,
because it twice had a character asking in melodramatic tones,
"Who do you serve, and who do you trust?" <i>WHOM! It's WHOM, you
stupid show!</i> But there we are.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3C72286E-9006-4CFC-B129-42760E5BDBE7@mac.com">
<div class="">It’s good to have the rule to explain the past, but
I don’t think anybody should feel TOO attached to the rule for
the future.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Please cite the canonical evidence that shows that this rule is
disappearing from the language.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3C72286E-9006-4CFC-B129-42760E5BDBE7@mac.com">
<div class="">It’s like the English word “ain’t”. We know it’s not
proper, but it works, and EVERYBODY knows HOW it works.</div>
</blockquote>
<p><i>Ain't</i> is completely proper in the correct dialects. A
style guide may tell you not to use it, but that doesn't make it
wrong. There are circumstances where, if you said <i>isn't</i>
instead of <i>ain't,</i> you'd actually be wrong to do so.</p>
<p>Take, for instance, the famous phrase "Ain't nobody got time for
that." In the dialect spoken by Sweet Brown, that is a completely
acceptable and proper sentence. She could not have said "Nobody
has time for that" in her dialect; it would mark her as not
belonging. Her dialect, and many others like it, have known rules
that are as grammatically consistent as Standard American English.<br>
</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>
--------------81E4599788890D4EDCB4BC96--
--===============1944733959680845675==
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
--===============1944733959680845675==--
