[Tlhingan-hol] Beginner's Grammarian: The hunt is on

[qurgh lungqIj]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> jang je qurgh, jatlh:
> > True, but is a workless BG worthy of the title of "Grammarian" after
> > helping three or four people over a year? I (and others) have helped
> > way more people than that for the past two years in the "Learn Klingon"
> > group. If we are going to tie a title to dealing with a workload, then
> > that workload needs to be equal for each participant in my opinion.
>
> A very fair point. The question is, I suppose, what is the best way of
> going about it? Would we have a BG for each forum? One for tlhIngan-Hol,
> one for Facebook, one for Google+, and so forth? Again, standardisation of
> the position even from one BG to the next is virtually impossible because
> of the fluctuating nature of group participation, so I don't think we need
> to be too tied up in how equal the workload is across the various fora.
>

This was more about making sure that any new BG gets as much work as
previous BGs, not other BGs in other locations. The former BGs hold their
titles proudly because they had to work hard for them, and I'd hate to see
the position watered down. I'd like to see any plan we develop cover all
our basis and create at least a standardized way of picking a BG for each
place we choose to have one in.


taH:
> > We also have enough people that each one of the four beginners
> > that have recently raised their hands could get their own, personal,
> > BG. Why dump all the work on one person?
>
> With all due respect, you're arguing past yourself with this point. You
> said just before that there's not enough beginners to justify a BG's
> workload, but here you argue that one person isn't enough to take on the
> workload by suggesting it's "dumping" the workload on them. It can't swing
> both ways.
>

I believe you misunderstood. Since the consensus is there is enough newbies
to warrant a BG, I've conceded that point by now. I was just saying that
since we have enough people for everyone to get a BG, and people claim
there is sufficient workload to warrant one, why not just give everyone one
instead.



> I'm not against the idea of one-on-one service, but does it need to be
> from both directions? That's part of the BG's role, really: to provide
> grammatical explanation on demand to individual learners. It's one-on-one
> from the student's point of view, but not from the BG's, and I don't think
> that's a problem. It's also community-building in that regard: the
> beginners get to know each other and the BG from seeing other KLBC messages
> going through, and we all get to see who these new people are that are
> joining us. Conversely, if everyone's got their own separate Grammarian to
> email when they need to - a buddy system of sorts? - that'd have a tendency
> to isolate learners even more, which is a big enough problem as it is in
> the Klingon community.
>

We can still build community if we are smart in the implementation. Maybe
have a "Head-BG" (maybe a former BG who already knows the ropes) who
introduces new people, and assigned them a "Buddy-BG" to work with on the
list. So when that person posts a KLBC, the Buddy-BG responds first, with
the Head-BG acting as the moderator and can correct the Buddy-BG if they
err or they aren't available. If the Buddy becomes unavailable, the Head-BG
could assign a replacement. I'm just trying to come up with creative ways
to involve everyone who wants to learn, and put a process in place that
keeps the system going.



> The other thing is that, several though we Grammarians may be, we've got
> lives too and can't always dedicate that kind of time. I basically go email
> dead for two to three months of the year, and also face some mental health
> problems that mean I may drop out of contact with little notice, and so I'm
> not really in a position to take on a mentoring role right now. Others have
> their own things going on. The thing about the BG is that it's only one
> person who has to make the commitment, and there's a little more leeway in
> terms of what the skill requirement is.
>

That's why I want to get more people involved. The current system has no
backup plan, which is another reason why it died. The current BG failed to
pass it on, and no one took it because we didn't know what the process was
supposed to be.


Now I really feel like a curmudgeon. DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'. I
> guess I just have a real soft spot for the role of BG. To me it was a
> stupendous honour being asked to serve and to do a formally-structured part
> to actively improve the lot of our language - to be honest, I'm nearly as
> proud of being able to use the title {'utlh} as I am the title "Dr.". But
> apart from that, my own Klingon improved more in that year than any other
> three years of my learning. I want others on this list to have the
> opportunity too, and I know several of the other Grammarians feel the same
> way. If people are keen on establishing such structures (or similar, like
> the idea of having one-on-one mentoring or buddying) on the Facebook and
> Google+ groups, that's wonderful and can only be of benefit to the Klingon
> community at large. But for my part, I'm afraid I don't have the
> psychological energy to establish that for three separate fora (let alone
> putting in the work to establish something new like a one-on-one system),
> and this is the one I'm focusing on doing something about, for better or
> for worse.
>

I understand the feeling completely. Many of us have been doing this for
decades, and had been waiting the whole time to be tapped for such an
honor, so we could get this boost, but it never came. I was very
disappointed when the BG concept died, as I realized I'd never get that
experience. That's why I moved to other places to help teach, because there
were eager minds wanting information. I think I managed to get the
experience elsewhere, but I will never get the title and with my current
KLI/Facebook workload I just don't have the time to be The BG here as well.

qurgh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151110/b139688c/attachment.html>