tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 23 14:37:15 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: law'/puS
>Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 09:29:06 -0500
>Originator: [email protected]
>From: [email protected]
>>>canonical and so, we have to deal with it the same way we deal with
>Okrand's
>>>{Hub'eghrupHa'} and so forth.
>>Did Okrand really say *that*? Where? When? I don't remember it. It
>>breaks rules, too: -Ha' is supposed to precede all other suffixes. What
>>gives with this???
>>~mark
>Oh, why, absolutely. This corruption was printed on the SP2 Sky Box Trading
>Card, entitled SuvwI' taj. It is there in the second sentence: {not
>Hub'eghrupHa' lo'wI'}. He also used {tuQmoHHa'} in "HolQeD" 2:4 pg.17.
>Apparently he forgot his own rule.
Ugh. Well, if nobody objects, I'm going to treat that as an Okrandian
boo-boo and not generalize from it... I think that's what Guido's saying
here as well.
>There have been other obvious mistakes. Does anyone remember {jIHtaHbogh
>naDev vISovbe'} in TKD pg.172?
Don't remind me.
>The point is that we can't accept everything
>as true, honest, grammatical Klingon, and Okrand can only backfit to a point,
>without continuously refering to "different Klingon dialects, slang," and so
>forth.
Whew.
~mark