[86716] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: intuition and grammar (was Re: Ditransitive reflexives)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Lytle)
Wed Oct 28 20:52:13 2009
In-Reply-To: <3FD7DBAC-D0DE-4085-93F9-DF3182F7F788@alcaco.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:49:22 -0400
From: Steven Lytle <lytlesw@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
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'
>
>
>
>
>
>
