[93582] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Lament (Re: A demonstration of aspect we can all
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmIt tI'wI'nuv)
Thu Jun 7 17:10:35 2012
From: lojmIt tI'wI'nuv <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 17:10:14 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4FD10FAE.5050603@trimboli.name>
To: tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
--===============7842056227521241720==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8AB65FE5-6E2F-4049-A40A-80D8E53C112D"
--Apple-Mail=_8AB65FE5-6E2F-4049-A40A-80D8E53C112D
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
While I don't have nostalgia for a past in which we had a consensus =
simply because I've been in the middle of too many arguements throughout =
the history of the language and I don't believe we've ever had a really =
solid consensus, I'm not amused by this. We've lost a lot of members =
here. I don't think losing another one is amusing.
If you can still hear me, I'd like you,ter'eS, to reconsider. Likely, =
this is yet another storm that will blow over, and there will be a more =
positive, cooperative communication shared here once again.
Yes, there is a problem when someone enjoys jumping in and basically =
saying, "You guys are idiots and you have it all wrong. I really am the =
only one who understands how this language works. Let me set you all =
straight."
But we've always had that. Every rare now and then, somebody shakes =
things up. I did, myself, when I pushed the idea that {-ghach} was being =
massively overused lots of years ago. Our Australian member responded by =
rewriting his impressive collection of Shakespeare sonnets (written in =
Klingon metered verse) to cut back on what had been excessive use of the =
suffix. I was a bit stunned by that. So, that was a bit of a jag.
I did it again when people were arguing about how to express the =
question word "which" in Klingon. I didn't burst in with intent to =
create a jag. I mostly fought to stop a jag in a bad direction, misusing =
{nuq} as an adjective, and it turned into changing an English question =
into a command. Instead of "Which weapon do you want?" you say, {nuH =
yIwIv!}.=20
SuStel has had created jags as well, and this one may be the newest in =
his collection. He deserves congratulations if he pulls it off.
But most of the time, our understanding of the language is expanded =
communally through experience over time, rather than in sharp jags, =
driven by a single person's insistence on a specific interpretation of a =
point of grammar. Time alone determines how things go, and "it ain't =
over 'till the fat lady sings."
On this one, I don't hear singing yet. I'm listening, and she may belt =
one out any minute now. But not yet.
I'm actually happy to go along on this one after I've done some research =
I haven't had the chance to do yet. It seems a bit too radical a change =
from what has been a long-existing understanding of the language on the =
two points mentioned:
1. Okrand's perfective seems more focused on the end point instead of =
the entire duration of the action of the verb.
2. Okrand does not seem to indicate exactly what the absence of a Type 7 =
suffix means with the same level of certainty and precision that SuStel =
claims.
If after looking over a bunch of stuff, I see evidence that SuStel is =
right on this, I'll definitely concede, and we can progress as a happy =
family. Qov seems convinced, which surprises me a bit, but I accept =
that. I haven't heard much from anyone else.
Likely others are as fed up with this noise as you are.
We are unnecessarily nasty to one another. I wish we could evolve past =
that, and celebrate that we are doing something together, instead of =
making it a pissing contest so often.
I'm not delighted with my own participation in it, but it's really hard =
not to respond in kind to wording that is quite confrontational and =
severe.
Why can't we get along better?
pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
On Jun 7, 2012, at 4:31 PM, David Trimboli wrote:
> On 6/7/2012 4:08 PM, Terrence Donnelly wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> --- On Thu, 6/7/12, David Trimboli and many others wrote:
>>> lots of stuff
>>=20
>> You know what this list is now? A starving man in a locked room.
>> He's long past the stage of having any food to eat or even any body
>> fat to burn, and now he's burning his own muscle. We have relatively
>> little new Klingon to study (that we can totally trust), and as a
>> result, we keep going back to the texts we do have and picking them
>> apart. As I commented a while back during the debate about what
>> {-Daq} really means (or maybe it was {ghaj}), if we work hard enough,
>> we can make this language totally unusable. If anybody wonders why
>> more newbies don't post here, I'd say that this constant tendency to
>> rethink long-established patterns, this "everything you know is
>> wrong" mindset, goes a long way towards explaining it.
>>=20
>> I'm pretty much done with Klingon, and the way a once-firm concensus
>> about how it operates has been eroded in the last few years is a
>> large part of the reason why.
>=20
> This amuses me, and sounds very much like religion. The traditional =
definition of Klingon?
>=20
> Consensus? On this list? Are you kidding?!
>=20
> --=20
> SuStel
> http://www.trimboli.name/
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
> http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--Apple-Mail=_8AB65FE5-6E2F-4049-A40A-80D8E53C112D
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=us-ascii
<html><head></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; =
"><div>While I don't have nostalgia for a past in which we had a =
consensus simply because I've been in the middle of too many arguements =
throughout the history of the language and I don't believe we've ever =
had a really solid consensus, I'm not amused by this. We've lost a lot =
of members here. I don't think losing another one is =
amusing.</div><div><br></div><div>If you can still hear me, I'd like =
you,ter'eS, to reconsider. Likely, this is yet another storm that will =
blow over, and there will be a more positive, cooperative communication =
shared here once again.</div><div><br></div><div>Yes, there is a problem =
when someone enjoys jumping in and basically saying, "You guys are =
idiots and you have it all wrong. I really am the only one who =
understands how this language works. Let me set you all =
straight."</div><div><br></div><div>But we've always had that. Every =
rare now and then, somebody shakes things up. I did, myself, when I =
pushed the idea that {-ghach} was being massively overused lots of years =
ago. Our Australian member responded by rewriting his impressive =
collection of Shakespeare sonnets (written in Klingon metered verse) to =
cut back on what had been excessive use of the suffix. I was a bit =
stunned by that. So, that was a bit of a jag.</div><div><br></div><div>I =
did it again when people were arguing about how to express the question =
word "which" in Klingon. I didn't burst in with intent to create a jag. =
I mostly fought to stop a jag in a bad direction, misusing {nuq} as an =
adjective, and it turned into changing an English question into a =
command. Instead of "Which weapon do you want?" you say, {nuH =
yIwIv!}. </div><div><br></div><div>SuStel has had created jags as =
well, and this one may be the newest in his collection. He deserves =
congratulations if he pulls it off.</div><div><br></div><div>But most of =
the time, our understanding of the language is expanded communally =
through experience over time, rather than in sharp jags, driven by a =
single person's insistence on a specific interpretation of a point of =
grammar. Time alone determines how things go, and "it ain't over 'till =
the fat lady sings."</div><div><br></div><div>On this one, I don't hear =
singing yet. I'm listening, and she may belt one out any minute now. But =
not yet.</div><div><br></div><div>I'm actually happy to go along on this =
one after I've done some research I haven't had the chance to do yet. It =
seems a bit too radical a change from what has been a long-existing =
understanding of the language on the two points =
mentioned:</div><div><br></div><div>1. Okrand's perfective seems more =
focused on the end point instead of the entire duration of the action of =
the verb.</div><div><br></div><div>2. Okrand does not seem to indicate =
exactly what the absence of a Type 7 suffix means with the same level of =
certainty and precision that SuStel claims.</div><div><br></div><div>If =
after looking over a bunch of stuff, I see evidence that SuStel is right =
on this, I'll definitely concede, and we can progress as a happy family. =
Qov seems convinced, which surprises me a bit, but I accept that. I =
haven't heard much from anyone else.</div><div><br></div><div>Likely =
others are as fed up with this noise as you =
are.</div><div><br></div><div>We are unnecessarily nasty to one another. =
I wish we could evolve past that, and celebrate that we are doing =
something together, instead of making it a pissing contest so =
often.</div><div><br></div><div>I'm not delighted with my own =
participation in it, but it's really hard not to respond in kind to =
wording that is quite confrontational and =
severe.</div><div><br></div><div>Why can't we get along =
better?</div><br><div>
<span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate; =
color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; =
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; =
line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: =
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; =
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: =
auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; =
"><div>pItlh</div><div>lojmIt tI'wI'nuv</div><div><br></div></span><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br><div><div>On Jun 7, 2012, at 4:31 PM, David Trimboli wrote:</div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div>On =
6/7/2012 4:08 PM, Terrence Donnelly wrote:<br><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">--- On Thu, =
6/7/12, David Trimboli and many others =
wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote =
type=3D"cite">lots of stuff<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">You know what =
this list is now? A starving man in a locked =
room.<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">He's long past the stage =
of having any food to eat or even any body<br></blockquote><blockquote =
type=3D"cite">fat to burn, and now he's burning his own muscle. We have =
relatively<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">little new Klingon =
to study (that we can totally trust), and as =
a<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">result, we keep going back =
to the texts we do have and picking them<br></blockquote><blockquote =
type=3D"cite">apart. As I commented a while back during the debate about =
what<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">{-Daq} really means (or =
maybe it was {ghaj}), if we work hard =
enough,<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">we can make this =
language totally unusable. If anybody wonders =
why<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">more newbies don't post =
here, I'd say that this constant tendency to<br></blockquote><blockquote =
type=3D"cite">rethink long-established patterns, this "everything you =
know is<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">wrong" mindset, goes a =
long way towards explaining it.<br></blockquote><blockquote =
type=3D"cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">I'm pretty much =
done with Klingon, and the way a once-firm =
concensus<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">about how it =
operates has been eroded in the last few years is =
a<br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite">large part of the reason =
why.<br></blockquote><br>This amuses me, and sounds very much like =
religion. The traditional definition of Klingon?<br><br>Consensus? On =
this list? Are you kidding?!<br><br>-- <br>SuStel<br><a =
href=3D"http://www.trimboli.name/">http://www.trimboli.name/</a><br><br>__=
_____________________________________________<br>Tlhingan-hol mailing =
list<br>Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org<br>http://stodi.digitalkingd=
om.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol<br></div></blockquote></div><br></bod=
y></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_8AB65FE5-6E2F-4049-A40A-80D8E53C112D--
--===============7842056227521241720==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============7842056227521241720==--
