[tlhIngan Hol] placement of {je} relative to the {rIntaH}

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Tue Jan 28 10:00:50 PST 2020

On 1/28/2020 12:26 PM, Will Martin wrote:
> I was asking for more information.

You began with "The first problem" and most of the rest centers around 
"you need to either provide the context." "Asking for more information" 
is the polite spin on it; I call it "telling him his question isn't good 
enough to answer," especially since you failed to answer his actual 
question, which you yourself admit was different than the question you 
wanted to answer.

But I responded to you in a straightforward way, to the point, and you 
came back at me with insults.

> I don’t think I’m exaggerating or insulting anyone, or misleading 
> anyone. I think that’s an honest recap.

I simply can't roll my eyes any harder.

> Your paraphrases suggest that I was chastising him for sending an 
> inappropriate post; that I wanted to stop the discussion or anything 
> of a similar type.

No, my paraphrases show that you criticized his original post for not 
being specific enough, I pointed out that they were exactly as specific 
as they needed to be, and then YOU insulted ME for that.

> I understand that a reasonable person could interpret my post as such, 
> if you presume that my motive was to shut down the discussion and 
> disallow that kind of question.

Where oh where in my paraphrase did I presume anything about you trying 
to shut down or disallow his question or any other? Go ahead, show me. 
I'll wait.

> I do not promise to not post or to not reply to anything.

No one has asked that of you.

> It would be helpful toward that end if you likewise presume less about 
> my motives and accuse me less of things I’m not nearly so guilty of as 
> you presume.

That is EXACTLY what I did when you posted the first response. Even as I 
rolled my eyes as your misplaced criticism, I carefully composed a 
response that was strictly business: pointing out the completeness of 
mayqel's question and showing how his ambiguity, which you criticized, 
was exactly the same ambiguity in the Klingon. I never once said 
anything about you or your motives. "There," I thought as I clicked 
Send, "If he responds to that, he has no reason to launch another 
screed. Either he agrees or he doesn't, and if he doesn't SURELY this 
time he'll argue from reason." And lo, you just launch an attack on me 
about how I don't care about expressing meaning well, comparing me to a 
heartless computer.

YOU, sir, began the insults. YOU, sir, announced that you expected a 
counterattack by saying what you were saying. YOU, sir, make your 
motives plain when you do so.

> Up to this point, your attacks could be interpreted as reasonable. 
> Continue them, and it will be increasingly clear to the community at 
> large that you have no interest in resolving the unnecessary intensity 
> between us.


> Continuing it because you are still pissed off for whatever reason 
> would not be my fault. It would be your fault.

In other words, "If you don't let me have the last word of the argument, 
I'm going to blame you of being the unreasonable one."

Resolving the "unnecessary intensity" is simple. Stop hurling insults.


More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list