Re: new Klingon spelling

On Wednesday, January 7, 2004, at 10:54  AM, Thomas R. Wier wrote:
> It seems that absolutely everyone here interpreted me as suggesting
> that there are "right" and "wrong" pronunciations, despite the fact
> that I explicitly disavowed that stance. I also took into account
> whether the speaker is capable without much effort of changing their
> behavior (e.g., if they have to learn a wholly new phonology, that
> takes a lot of effort). I also stressed that this was a matter of the
> community involved;  if the community does not care, then the practical
> effects are next to nil.  My point was all about the practical effects
> of people's speech, not about the legal or ethical status thereof.
> My point (see other posts for details) was that there are certain
> communities that simply don't like being called by certain names,
> which I exemplified by native American tribes being called in English
> by names which mean "slave" or "vile dogs" or something else that
> could reasonably cause offense.  Do Jews not like to be called "yid"s
> or "kike"s? Most, I think it is safe to say, do not like to be called
> thus.  These words which are very offensive to Jews are an example of
> something at one end of a continuum;  other words, like the Meskwaki
> example, are only mildly offensive; other words, at the other end
> of the spectrum, only show ignorance of one's culture and thus will
> cause offense to some people but perhaps not most.
Hmm... i just realized that "yid" could be seen as somewhat similar in
use to the word "nigga" as used by African-Americans - perfectly fine
as an in-group term, but seen as offensive when used by a member of the
out-group.


-Stephen (Steg)
  "dos iz nit der šteg."