placement of {je} relative to the {rIntaH}
We want to say: "I captured the romulans too". Do we know, which of the following is correct ? Or at least more correct ? romuluSnganpu' vIjon je rIntaH romuluSnganpu' vIjon rIntaH je ~ mayqel qunen'oS
The first problem is that your English sentence is very ambiguous, so how can we know exactly how to translate it? Do you mean “I was among those who captured the Romulans,” or do you mean, “I captured prisoners including some Romulans,” or do you mean, “I did a bunch of things, including capturing the Romulans,”? As always, context could clarify this, but when you ask, “What’s the best way to translate X?”, you need to either provide the context, or give us a starting quote that is explicit enough that we know the shade of meaning you are seeking to express clearly. Otherwise, you make us guess at what you mean, or you seek a Klingon sentence that is equally ambiguous as the original English, which is hard to do because ambiguity may carry different shades of meaning in the two languages; it might be differently ambiguous. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jan 27, 2020, at 8:40 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
We want to say: "I captured the romulans too".
Do we know, which of the following is correct ? Or at least more correct ?
romuluSnganpu' vIjon je rIntaH romuluSnganpu' vIjon rIntaH je
~ mayqel qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
charghwI':
The first problem is that your English sentence is very ambiguous, so how can we know exactly how to translate it?
If I remember correctly, even the tkd section on {je} states, that the use of {je} can create ambiguous sentences. The intended meaning on the example sentence I provided, can be any of the meanings that you mentioned.. But how does this influence the placement of the {je} relative to the {rIntaH}, which is/was the original question ? Regardless the exact intended meaning, the question stands the same: In what order do we need to be placing the {je} and the {rIntaH} ? ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 1/27/2020 9:00 AM, Will Martin wrote:
The first problem is that your English sentence is very ambiguous, so how can we know exactly how to translate it?
The problem here has nothing to do with ambiguity. He's asking about the order of *je* and *rIntaH.* If we use *-ta'* instead of *rIntaH* to avoid the problem, the translation is simple: *romuluSnganpu' vIjonta' je */I captured the Romulans too./ Klingon and English have exactly the same ambiguity. The English could mean what you said:
Do you mean “I was among those who captured the Romulans,” or do you mean, “I captured prisoners including some Romulans,” or do you mean, “I did a bunch of things, including capturing the Romulans,”?
The Klingon can mean exactly these things too. /The Klingon Dictionary /explicitly points out how *je* can have an ambiguous meaning. This is a normal part of *je.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I always am amused by how often the dominant discussions here don’t give a fig about expressing meaning well. It’s always about the minutia of syntax. Make sure you encode things accurately. Forget about actual translation. That’s obviously unimportant here. Just make sure that a computer program that generates Klingon text would spew only valid grammatical constructions. All head. No heart. That also explains the passionate refusal to mention cultural considerations, since that falls outside the context of modern software. I’m sure I’ll be insulted and abused for saying this, just so nobody thinks I don’t forsee it happening. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jan 27, 2020, at 9:17 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 1/27/2020 9:00 AM, Will Martin wrote:
The first problem is that your English sentence is very ambiguous, so how can we know exactly how to translate it? The problem here has nothing to do with ambiguity. He's asking about the order of je and rIntaH.
If we use -ta' instead of rIntaH to avoid the problem, the translation is simple:
romuluSnganpu' vIjonta' je I captured the Romulans too.
Klingon and English have exactly the same ambiguity. The English could mean what you said:
Do you mean “I was among those who captured the Romulans,” or do you mean, “I captured prisoners including some Romulans,” or do you mean, “I did a bunch of things, including capturing the Romulans,”? The Klingon can mean exactly these things too. The Klingon Dictionary explicitly points out how je can have an ambiguous meaning. This is a normal part of je.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 1/27/2020 12:02 PM, Will Martin wrote:
I always am amused by how often the dominant discussions here don’t give a fig about expressing meaning well. It’s always about the minutia of syntax. Make sure you encode things accurately. Forget about actual translation. That’s obviously unimportant here. Just make sure that a computer program that generates Klingon text would spew only valid grammatical constructions.
All head. No heart.
That also explains the passionate refusal to mention cultural considerations, since that falls outside the context of modern software.
What an obnoxious, passive-aggressive response this is. mayqel's translation had EXACTLY the same ambiguities as the original. There was ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with it. His only question was whether the *je* or the *rIntaH* comes first. You not only ignored that question but began to pontificate on how he didn't provide you enough context to disambiguate a sentence that was SUPPOSED to be ambiguous. Then you accuse me of having no heart because I'm trying to stop you from dragging us away from his question. You want to talk about ambiguities in Klingon or English? Do it in your own thread about your own sentence.
I’m sure I’ll be insulted and abused for saying this, just so nobody thinks I don’t forsee it happening.
That's because you're being an obnoxious and abusive troll, and you know it. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
This wasn’t passive-aggressive. A little sarcastic in parts, yes, but not passive aggressive. I spoke a sincere opinion that the discussions seem overly focused on exploring the outer fringes of syntax with very little interest in stretching ones ability to express a wide scope of meaning or a specific shade of meaning using the language. I’m sure there are at least ten posts about word order while using unusual syntax for every one post about how to express a given meaning in the language. I didn’t think that my post deserved a response, though I felt sure that it would get one, as you have proven, since censorship is so important to you. You clearly want an extraordinary degree of control over who speaks and what they say. So long as it fits your narrow interest, it’s fine, but stray, and receive admonition. We can’t have a wider scope of topics. You won’t allow it, which, while on the topic, is fairly obnoxious and abusive. I am honestly impressed — no sarcasm or meanness intended here — at how good you have gotten with the syntax, and with your well-selected examples from canon. This group really is better off for the resources you offer it. I mean that. Please put aside your probable dark feelings about me to accept that honest compliment. This positive resource comes with a cost, apparently, which is the mechanisms you use to thwart anyone straying from discussions you don’t like or wish to control more rigidly without competition. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jan 27, 2020, at 12:15 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 1/27/2020 12:02 PM, Will Martin wrote:
I always am amused by how often the dominant discussions here don’t give a fig about expressing meaning well. It’s always about the minutia of syntax. Make sure you encode things accurately. Forget about actual translation. That’s obviously unimportant here. Just make sure that a computer program that generates Klingon text would spew only valid grammatical constructions.
All head. No heart.
That also explains the passionate refusal to mention cultural considerations, since that falls outside the context of modern software. What an obnoxious, passive-aggressive response this is.
mayqel's translation had EXACTLY the same ambiguities as the original. There was ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with it. His only question was whether the je or the rIntaH comes first. You not only ignored that question but began to pontificate on how he didn't provide you enough context to disambiguate a sentence that was SUPPOSED to be ambiguous. Then you accuse me of having no heart because I'm trying to stop you from dragging us away from his question.
You want to talk about ambiguities in Klingon or English? Do it in your own thread about your own sentence.
I’m sure I’ll be insulted and abused for saying this, just so nobody thinks I don’t forsee it happening.
That's because you're being an obnoxious and abusive troll, and you know it.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
charghwI’ As core resources become more standardised and accessible (see the rise of Duolingo and Memrise, as well as the many excellent video resources provided by members such as our Klingon Teacher from Germany), the core constructs become more internalised and less discussion is needed since there is more structural/static help available for them. Thus, people ask fewer questions about “normal” things. Thus people get the fringes faster. Thus people ask questions about the fringes sooner and more readily. I’ll also add that in the discussion of the fringes and the edge cases I see many things that expand my understanding of the core syntax and give me more ideas about how to express more shades of meaning. I think it’s a natural consequence of better structural systems for learning the language at lower levels — a sign of a growing community. This kind of evolution happens in technical and academic disciplines all the time. —jevreH Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 27, 2020, at 14:04, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
This wasn’t passive-aggressive. A little sarcastic in parts, yes, but not passive aggressive. I spoke a sincere opinion that the discussions seem overly focused on exploring the outer fringes of syntax with very little interest in stretching ones ability to express a wide scope of meaning or a specific shade of meaning using the language. I’m sure there are at least ten posts about word order while using unusual syntax for every one post about how to express a given meaning in the language.
I didn’t think that my post deserved a response, though I felt sure that it would get one, as you have proven, since censorship is so important to you. You clearly want an extraordinary degree of control over who speaks and what they say. So long as it fits your narrow interest, it’s fine, but stray, and receive admonition.
We can’t have a wider scope of topics. You won’t allow it, which, while on the topic, is fairly obnoxious and abusive.
I am honestly impressed — no sarcasm or meanness intended here — at how good you have gotten with the syntax, and with your well-selected examples from canon. This group really is better off for the resources you offer it. I mean that. Please put aside your probable dark feelings about me to accept that honest compliment.
This positive resource comes with a cost, apparently, which is the mechanisms you use to thwart anyone straying from discussions you don’t like or wish to control more rigidly without competition.
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jan 27, 2020, at 12:15 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 1/27/2020 12:02 PM, Will Martin wrote:
I always am amused by how often the dominant discussions here don’t give a fig about expressing meaning well. It’s always about the minutia of syntax. Make sure you encode things accurately. Forget about actual translation. That’s obviously unimportant here. Just make sure that a computer program that generates Klingon text would spew only valid grammatical constructions.
All head. No heart.
That also explains the passionate refusal to mention cultural considerations, since that falls outside the context of modern software. What an obnoxious, passive-aggressive response this is.
mayqel's translation had EXACTLY the same ambiguities as the original. There was ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with it. His only question was whether the je or the rIntaH comes first. You not only ignored that question but began to pontificate on how he didn't provide you enough context to disambiguate a sentence that was SUPPOSED to be ambiguous. Then you accuse me of having no heart because I'm trying to stop you from dragging us away from his question.
You want to talk about ambiguities in Klingon or English? Do it in your own thread about your own sentence.
I’m sure I’ll be insulted and abused for saying this, just so nobody thinks I don’t forsee it happening.
That's because you're being an obnoxious and abusive troll, and you know it.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Thank you for your calm and diplomatic explanation of dynamics I’ve only partially become aware of. It’s nice to have a mutually respectful exchange. I’m not sure I’d agree on the concept of technology for learning a language that makes interpersonal communication less necessary a sign of a “growing” language community, though substitute “evolving” and we’re in total agreement. I’m sure you are accurate in your assessment. It would be interesting to know how many people are now in the community and how that number has expanded or contracted. Of course such a number would have to be vague as are the porous boundaries between those who know the language vs. those who know about it, as a continuum, not a distinctly bounded difference. Most people I talk to about it these days don’t know what a Klingon is, and barely know what Star Trek is, though they frequently confuse it with Star Wars. It would be interesting to see how proportions have shifted between the early three primary categories of Klingon speakers: Trekkers, linguists, and computer nerds, and what new categories may exist that have grown since we came to recognize those three primary groups. I also wonder if the use of the language has shifted; how much Klingon literature has developed, whether it is used as a spoken language among many individuals, and how large any group of speakers has grown to be in any single physical location, and where such locations might be. Do we still have speakers on all continents? What is the average number of languages that a Klingon speaker speaks? How many have used it for less than a year? More than a decade? How many have TKDs old enough to prove they didn’t use acid-free paper? Is there an E-book version? Has KCD been distributed through iTunes or Audio Books? Are there any efforts to Archive resources originally distributed on obsolete media or using obsolete file types? And what about yoDtargh? I miss him. Very talented fourth Beginners’ Grammarian, who took over the role when I left it and showed up for one qep’a’, and then disappeared. Somewhere out there, there’s a guy that good at the language who hasn’t participated in decades... Or what about ‘arHa, according to the Klingon Wiki, “currently serving” as Beginners’ Grammarian? How many others went to the trouble to learn the language and then wandered away, distracted by other missions in life? Where are they now, and what is the difference between them and those still here? In other words, fictional world aside, what is the 20th-21st century Earth culture of people who speak this language? Likely, someone is writing their doctoral thesis on the topic, updating earlier versions by earlier authors... charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jan 27, 2020, at 2:26 PM, jevreh@qeylis.net wrote:
charghwI’
As core resources become more standardised and accessible (see the rise of Duolingo and Memrise, as well as the many excellent video resources provided by members such as our Klingon Teacher from Germany), the core constructs become more internalised and less discussion is needed since there is more structural/static help available for them.
Thus, people ask fewer questions about “normal” things. Thus people get the fringes faster. Thus people ask questions about the fringes sooner and more readily.
I’ll also add that in the discussion of the fringes and the edge cases I see many things that expand my understanding of the core syntax and give me more ideas about how to express more shades of meaning.
I think it’s a natural consequence of better structural systems for learning the language at lower levels — a sign of a growing community.
This kind of evolution happens in technical and academic disciplines all the time.
—jevreH
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 27, 2020, at 14:04, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
This wasn’t passive-aggressive. A little sarcastic in parts, yes, but not passive aggressive. I spoke a sincere opinion that the discussions seem overly focused on exploring the outer fringes of syntax with very little interest in stretching ones ability to express a wide scope of meaning or a specific shade of meaning using the language. I’m sure there are at least ten posts about word order while using unusual syntax for every one post about how to express a given meaning in the language.
I didn’t think that my post deserved a response, though I felt sure that it would get one, as you have proven, since censorship is so important to you. You clearly want an extraordinary degree of control over who speaks and what they say. So long as it fits your narrow interest, it’s fine, but stray, and receive admonition.
We can’t have a wider scope of topics. You won’t allow it, which, while on the topic, is fairly obnoxious and abusive.
I am honestly impressed — no sarcasm or meanness intended here — at how good you have gotten with the syntax, and with your well-selected examples from canon. This group really is better off for the resources you offer it. I mean that. Please put aside your probable dark feelings about me to accept that honest compliment.
This positive resource comes with a cost, apparently, which is the mechanisms you use to thwart anyone straying from discussions you don’t like or wish to control more rigidly without competition.
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jan 27, 2020, at 12:15 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
On 1/27/2020 12:02 PM, Will Martin wrote:
I always am amused by how often the dominant discussions here don’t give a fig about expressing meaning well. It’s always about the minutia of syntax. Make sure you encode things accurately. Forget about actual translation. That’s obviously unimportant here. Just make sure that a computer program that generates Klingon text would spew only valid grammatical constructions.
All head. No heart.
That also explains the passionate refusal to mention cultural considerations, since that falls outside the context of modern software. What an obnoxious, passive-aggressive response this is.
mayqel's translation had EXACTLY the same ambiguities as the original. There was ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with it. His only question was whether the je or the rIntaH comes first. You not only ignored that question but began to pontificate on how he didn't provide you enough context to disambiguate a sentence that was SUPPOSED to be ambiguous. Then you accuse me of having no heart because I'm trying to stop you from dragging us away from his question.
You want to talk about ambiguities in Klingon or English? Do it in your own thread about your own sentence.
I’m sure I’ll be insulted and abused for saying this, just so nobody thinks I don’t forsee it happening.
That's because you're being an obnoxious and abusive troll, and you know it.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
fse: I can't understand why people constantly feel the need to crap on my threads.. If in a year from now, I need to revise what was said, with regards to the placement of {je} relative to the {rIntaH}, then WHY THE JAY' DO I NEED TO BE READING ALL THIS CRAP ??? tlh: QIn tlheghmeywIj Qaw'nIStaH 'op; 'e' luHarba' nuvpu'vam, 'ej ngoDvam vIyajlaHbe'chu'. qaSpu'DI' wa' DIS, 'ej {je} {rIntaH} je lanchu'ghach vIHaDnISqa'chugh, vaj QATLH VEQVAM HOCH VILAD JAY' ??? ~ mayqel qunen'oS
Here’s a public apology. I misunderstood. There was a day when this list had threads that splintered so as to address different interests, and while there has always been unrest, for the most part it was not a wholly unwelcome thing. It’s a different list now. Each thread is more focused, and any splinters are unwelcome. I will try to be more respectful of those who ask a question and be careful only to address the specific idea that is suggested by their question, or let the question pass for others who are more interested in fringe grammar to answer more appropriately. To be honest, all it took was a less aggressive, less angry response to allow me to take in the change without feeling sufficiently shoved to justify shoving back. I feel no more need to shove, and want everyone here to be as content as possible for my likely quiet, continued presence here. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jan 27, 2020, at 4:14 PM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
fse:
I can't understand why people constantly feel the need to crap on my threads..
If in a year from now, I need to revise what was said, with regards to the placement of {je} relative to the {rIntaH}, then WHY THE JAY' DO I NEED TO BE READING ALL THIS CRAP ???
tlh:
QIn tlheghmeywIj Qaw'nIStaH 'op; 'e' luHarba' nuvpu'vam, 'ej ngoDvam vIyajlaHbe'chu'.
qaSpu'DI' wa' DIS, 'ej {je} {rIntaH} je lanchu'ghach vIHaDnISqa'chugh, vaj QATLH VEQVAM HOCH VILAD JAY' ???
~ mayqel qunen'oS
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 1/27/2020 5:11 PM, Will Martin wrote:
It’s a different list now. Each thread is more focused, and any splinters are unwelcome.
Baloney. Tangents are fine. Telling someone they didn't phrase their question appropriately, then passive-aggressively insulting the person who points out that the question was entirely appropriate, is not fine. Let's review the evolution of the early part of this topic, shall we? /mayqel: /Which is correct? *rIntaH je* or *je rIntaH?* /charghwI': /Your translation is inappropriately ambiguous. /SuStel: /The translation is perfectly appropriate, because Klingon has exactly the same ambiguity. /charghwI': /You don't care about good expression. You have no heart. I post this knowing I'm making you angry. I did not try to censor your tangent. I said it was wrong, and I supplied evidence to support that claim. You responded with insults and no further substance to the topic, or even the tangent. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
It’s interesting how you paraphrase everything when direct quotes are available. Could it be that you like to exaggerate your arguments? In any case, you seem to be wanting an angry response. You might even read this one as angry, because, hey. You. Whatever problem there was is resolved, except in your mind. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jan 27, 2020, at 7:48 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 1/27/2020 5:11 PM, Will Martin wrote:
It’s a different list now. Each thread is more focused, and any splinters are unwelcome. Baloney. Tangents are fine. Telling someone they didn't phrase their question appropriately, then passive-aggressively insulting the person who points out that the question was entirely appropriate, is not fine.
Let's review the evolution of the early part of this topic, shall we?
mayqel: Which is correct? rIntaH je or je rIntaH?
charghwI': Your translation is inappropriately ambiguous.
SuStel: The translation is perfectly appropriate, because Klingon has exactly the same ambiguity.
charghwI': You don't care about good expression. You have no heart. I post this knowing I'm making you angry.
I did not try to censor your tangent. I said it was wrong, and I supplied evidence to support that claim. You responded with insults and no further substance to the topic, or even the tangent.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 1/28/2020 8:23 AM, Will Martin wrote:
It’s interesting how you paraphrase everything when direct quotes are available. Could it be that you like to exaggerate your arguments?
ghobe'. ja'chuqghach laD vay''e' net chaw'bej. chonwI' DaDataHvIS bIHIvmo', 'ej quvHa'ghachlIj DaSo'mo', QInmey qolqoS vI'aghmeH QInmey vInapmoHpu'.
In any case, you seem to be wanting an angry response. You might even read this one as angry, because, hey. You.
bIQ ngaS HIvje'lIj. pe'vIlHa' choHIvqa' chonwI' DaDaqa'taHvIS 'e' vInoH. jIH'e' choyajHa'chu' 'e' Datobqa'.
Whatever problem there was is resolved, except in your mind.
vaj qatlh bIjangta'? qay'be'choHlaw'pu' ghu'vam, 'ach bItIchtaH. Ha'qujlIj vInge'pu''a'? natlh to'lIj jay'. -- qoH vuvbe' SuStel http://trimboli.name
You obsessively presume my motives incorrectly. choyajHa’be’meH, DIvI’ Hol vIlo’. choyajHa’laHba’, ‘ach qamISmoHbe’ ‘e’ vInID. Your presumptions are revealed by your paraphrases. That’s what makes them preferable to you than actual quotes. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jan 28, 2020, at 9:38 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 1/28/2020 8:23 AM, Will Martin wrote:
It’s interesting how you paraphrase everything when direct quotes are available. Could it be that you like to exaggerate your arguments?
ghobe'. ja'chuqghach laD vay''e' net chaw'bej. chonwI' DaDataHvIS bIHIvmo', 'ej quvHa'ghachlIj DaSo'mo', QInmey qolqoS vI'aghmeH QInmey vInapmoHpu'.
In any case, you seem to be wanting an angry response. You might even read this one as angry, because, hey. You.
bIQ ngaS HIvje'lIj. pe'vIlHa' choHIvqa' chonwI' DaDaqa'taHvIS 'e' vInoH. jIH'e' choyajHa'chu' 'e' Datobqa'.
Whatever problem there was is resolved, except in your mind.
vaj qatlh bIjangta'? qay'be'choHlaw'pu' ghu'vam, 'ach bItIchtaH. Ha'qujlIj vInge'pu''a'?
natlh to'lIj jay'.
-- qoH vuvbe' SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 1/28/2020 11:32 AM, Will Martin wrote:
You obsessively presume my motives incorrectly. choyajHa’be’meH, DIvI’ Hol vIlo’. choyajHa’laHba’, ‘ach qamISmoHbe’ ‘e’ vInID.
Your presumptions are revealed by your paraphrases. That’s what makes them preferable to you than actual quotes.
And what are those presumptions, O Master of Subtlety? Please, do enlighten me. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I was asking for more information. My motive was to focus on expressing meaning well in the language, which I now know to be inappropriate, since that was not the interest of the original inquiry. I’ve apologized for that insensitivity on my part, quite sincerely, and I genuinely intend to stop myself from further behavior of this sort. You seem to believe that I want to be a problem here, hence your repeatedly calling me a “troll". I confess that I have accidentally stumbled into being a problem here, and I want to improve my citizenship here. I want to stop being a problem. I don’t think I’m exaggerating or insulting anyone, or misleading anyone. I think that’s an honest recap. 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. 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. I’m personally weary of that kind of question, but I’m quite capable of letting more interested parties have those discussions without further comment from me. That’s a promise. If I break that promise, you have full permission to give me a hard time about it. You have license to remind me that I promised not to do this again, though you should not try to expand this promise to pretend that it means I’ll never post here again. I’m promising not to, in may’qel’s words, “crap on [his] posts” or on anyone else’s posts who wants to inquire about the minutia of fringe grammar. Feel free. Enjoy. I will leave you alone to do as you wish in this regard. I do not promise to not post or to not reply to anything. I will try to keep my posts positive and interesting; a challenge for us all. I very honestly assure you that killing discussion was not my motive or intent. I was not as careful with my wording as I should have been, though even if I had been, the level of criticism applied to anything I say here is remarkably tinted by presumption about my imaginary, dark motives. You and I accuse each other a lot. It’s been a long-standing habit for both of us. I’d like that to happen less and am quite willing to actively seek to accuse you less. 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. 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. The heat between us is not your fault. It’s our fault. I own part of it, and not all of it. Continuing it because you are still pissed off for whatever reason would not be my fault. It would be your fault. The past is done. I ask that you join me in an effort toward a more positive future. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jan 28, 2020, at 11:57 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 1/28/2020 11:32 AM, Will Martin wrote:
You obsessively presume my motives incorrectly. choyajHa’be’meH, DIvI’ Hol vIlo’. choyajHa’laHba’, ‘ach qamISmoHbe’ ‘e’ vInID.
Your presumptions are revealed by your paraphrases. That’s what makes them preferable to you than actual quotes.
And what are those presumptions, O Master of Subtlety? Please, do enlighten me.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
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. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 1/28/2020 1:22 PM, Hugh Son puqloD wrote:
On Jan 28, 2020, at 08:39, SuStel<sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
chonwI' mu'vam vIyajlaHbe'. DaghItlhHa'pu''a'?
wot {chon} tu'lu'be'law'. DIp {chon} tu'lu', 'ach tlhejtaHvIS DIp mojaq {-wI'}, qech'e' chIwbogh mu' vIyajbe'.
/chunwI'/ vIghItlhHa'pu'. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 1/27/2020 2:03 PM, Will Martin wrote:
I spoke a sincere opinion that the discussions seem overly focused on exploring the outer fringes of syntax with very little interest in stretching ones ability to express a wide scope of meaning or a specific shade of meaning using the language.
When someone wants to discuss syntax, it is polite to discuss syntax. It is rude to tell them the question they have isn't good enough — especially when your reasoning is wrong. If you want to find ways to stretch your ability to express shades of meaning, by all means do so. Without hijacking someone else's question about syntax.
I’m sure there are at least ten posts about word order while using unusual syntax for every one post about how to express a given meaning in the language.
So post your enlightened ideas about expressing meaning. By the way, there are plenty of discussions around here about finding ways to express subtle meanings.
I didn’t think that my post deserved a response, though I felt sure that it would get one, as you have proven, since censorship is so important to you. You clearly want an extraordinary degree of control over who speaks and what they say. So long as it fits your narrow interest, it’s fine, but stray, and receive admonition.
You were trolling. You admitted to trolling. You're trolling now.
We can’t have a wider scope of topics. You won’t allow it, which, while on the topic, is fairly obnoxious and abusive.
Pick a wider topic. Post about it. Don't make accusations in your post. Don't pound on people about how vague, wittering, and indecisive they are. Don't hijack someone else's topic. I promise you, I won't argue with you. I'll participate. I'll look forward to it. Finding new and subtler ways to express something is satisfying. But if you continue to answer people's questions about canon with unevidenced conclusions from outrageous stereotypes, I'll still call them out as not supportable. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
charghwI':
naDev mughmeH ‘op nuvpu’, nIDqu’ nuvpu’vam.
fse: If you want to translate, go ahead, start a thread. Start *your* thread. But don't derail threads started by other people, trying to force them to think the way *you* want them to think, insulting them in the process. tlh: bImugh DaneHchugh, vaj yIruch, QIn tlhegh yItagh. QIn tlheghlIj'e' yItagh. 'a, latlhpu' QIn tlheghmey tIQaw'Qo', chaHvaD QubmeH Ho'DoSlIj DaraDmeH bInIDtaHvIS. jaSHa' bIvangtaHvIS, nuvpu'vam DatIch. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
charghwI', ja'chuqghach Daparchugh, yIjeSQo'. naDev ghojmeH 'op nuvpu', nIDqu' nuvpu'vam. vaj, nuvpu'vam tInISQo'. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
mayqel, qajangchugh ‘ej QInwIj Daparchugh, yIjangQo’. naDev mughmeH ‘op nuvpu’, nIDqu’ nuvpu’vam. vaj, nuvpu’vam tInISQo’. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jan 27, 2020, at 12:22 PM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
charghwI',
ja'chuqghach Daparchugh, yIjeSQo'.
naDev ghojmeH 'op nuvpu', nIDqu' nuvpu'vam.
vaj, nuvpu'vam tInISQo'.
~ mayqel qunen'oS _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 1/27/2020 1:49 PM, Will Martin wrote:
qajangchugh ‘ej QInwIj Daparchugh, yIjangQo’.
naDev mughmeH ‘op nuvpu’, nIDqu’ nuvpu’vam.
vaj, nuvpu’vam tInISQo’.
DaH meqlIj teH Da'ang: bIboQ DaneHbe'; bIvaq 'ej bInIS DaneH. tlhIngan DaDa 'e' DanIDchugh, tlhIngan quvHa' DaDabej. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 1/27/2020 8:40 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
We want to say: "I captured the romulans too".
Do we know, which of the following is correct ? Or at least more correct ?
romuluSnganpu' vIjon je rIntaH romuluSnganpu' vIjon rIntaH je
We don't know. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (5)
-
Hugh Son puqloD -
jevreh＠qeylis.net -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin