Is that really the best you can do?

Explore the possibility of nesting purpose clauses, which may not be valid, instead of exploring several other ways to express the same idea without doing anything at all that might be invalid?

In other words, don’t learn how to express meaningful sentences in Klingon. Focus all your attention on purpose clauses and all the possible (but perhaps invalid) things that you can do with them.

That’s really going to help develop your ability to speak Klingon.

Keep at it. It’s been working so well up to this point as a method for learning the language. See all the Klingon text that people write on this list? Isn’t that proof that this is the right way to learn the language?

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.




On May 15, 2019, at 4:19 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 5/15/2019 3:52 PM, Will Martin wrote:
And how does that teach them how to say actual expressions in Klingon?

They're asking whether these things can BE actual expressions in Klingon. If you don't think so, explain why not. Without accusing them of trying to encode English into Klingon.


How many years will it be before they actually make common use of the thing they passionately argued about for a dozen messages in a thread?

I honestly think they’d be much better served if they tried to say a common expression several different ways. Then they’d be learning how to USE the language instead of just how to argue about it.

I don't think it's for you to say how they enjoy the language. Saying "This doesn't seem to be against the rules; does it work?" is not an unproductive activity. I'd honestly never considered constructing nested purpose clauses before, but I can find no reasonable prohibition against it.

--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org