<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/18/2020 7:55 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+-UR0gF0aUtJG_p-5yf8FGx8UPRb_w6NgCs4OFpLDhJA@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">SuStel:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">It's also upon the person writing to take into account the sensibilities
and conventions of his or her audience.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
True, but since there are several thousand people learning klingon, I
doubt anyone can speak in their name, as if he'd asked them all.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>That's what conventions are for. They are guidelines agreed upon
by general consensus as the best way of doing something. You
aren't forced to follow conventions, but by definition they are
what a majority of people will be expecting.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+-UR0gF0aUtJG_p-5yf8FGx8UPRb_w6NgCs4OFpLDhJA@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
SuStel:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">You can come up with a writing
style that you think is wonderful, but if your audience doesn't agree
with you about that then you've failed as a writer.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
.. But I'm not a klingon writer, nor do I aspire to become one.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes you are. Every sentence you write makes you a writer. I don't
mean "author of a published and printed work"; I just mean writer.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+-UR0gF0aUtJG_p-5yf8FGx8UPRb_w6NgCs4OFpLDhJA@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Suppose okrand is asked, and replies by saying that klingon doesn't
have an impersonal second person "you". (And I believe that probably
this would be his answer..)</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't think he would jump to this answer, since there is
evidence of an impersonal you in his Klingon.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+-UR0gF0aUtJG_p-5yf8FGx8UPRb_w6NgCs4OFpLDhJA@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">And then someone triumphantly says: "see ? you can't use it".. maj..
I wonder.. Why would the same person, who in that scenario would call
me out not to use the impersonal second person "you", wouldn't object
too to people saying things like:
{DaHjaj, vavnI'wI' yotlhDaq vIghro' vIleghpu'} for "today, at my
grandfather's field I saw a cat".
Okrand never said that {vIghro'} means "terran cat". People use it
though, and noone says to the person using it: "I can't understand
what you're saying; is your grandfather a klingon on kronos ? Because
only there one could actually see a vIghro'.."
Rules are rules,</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>No. When it comes to languages, rules are not rules. Rules are
descriptions.</p>
<p>If Okrand were to say "Klingon does not permit an impersonal
you," then we could point out someone trying to use an impersonal
you and tell them they're wrong. But what that means is that
person's use of Klingon contradicts the description of Klingon
we've been given.</p>
<p>When someone uses <b>vIghro'</b> to refer to a Terran cat,
they're doing two things. First, they're following the
longstanding Star Trek convention of using a word for one type of
animal to describe a similar-looking alien animal. A bat is an
Earth order. Bajoran bats are mentioned in Star Trek, but they're
not related to bats. Eels are an Earth order, but the Ceti eel is
not related to eels. Cardassian voles are not voles. Rigellian
oxen are not oxen. Alvanian cave sloths are not sloths. Likewise,
<b>tera' vIghro'</b> are not <b>vIghro'.</b> It's the same Star
Trek game.</p>
<p>Second, they're not contradicting the description of the <b>vIghro'</b>
as a cat-like creature; they're adopting the word as a close
substitute for a native Terran word. No one is suggesting that the
<b>vIghro'</b> is found on Earth. If you want to be the guy who
says "Well, technically, the <b>vIghro'</b> is found on Kronos,
not Earth," people are just going to roll their eyes around you.
Yes, everyone knows that. A Klingon looking at a cat might think
it looks like a <b>vIghro',</b> so I'll just call it a <b>vIghro'</b>
whether that's technically correct or not. A more precise Klingon
might look at a cat and insist on using the Federation Standard
word <i>cat.</i><br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+-UR0gF0aUtJG_p-5yf8FGx8UPRb_w6NgCs4OFpLDhJA@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">As I wrote earlier, the reader needs to possess some basic discernment
skills. If he lacks them, then I'd ask him whenever he sees a klingon
post from me, to just press "delete" and save me the drama of having
to explain the obvious.
Because one can't say that he misunderstands the impersonal second
person "you" as being personal, while at the same time he doesn't
misunderstand a {vIghro'} used on its own.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>No one is saying they don't understand you. We're saying that you
may not be using the best tools to express yourself.<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>