tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 21 16:20:50 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: canon WAS Re: KSRP: Klingon animals
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: canon WAS Re: KSRP: Klingon animals
- Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 19:20:24 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Thu, 8 Aug 1996 18:24:35 -0700 Joel Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> There is no sense in being obtuse - clearly I meant in
> written discourse. I was and am arguing for the use of words
> from deuterocanon sources such as Kahless, the novel.
> When I, or anyone, chooses to use such vocabulary in
> conversation or writing the source, if other than the TKD
> should be cited - yes it is easier in text. OTOH in
> conversation (not that I live in a thriving Klingon community)
> I imagine a lot of "nuqjatlh" responses, and pantomime or
> slipping into DIvI' Hol. jISaHbe'.....
Face it. We don't even know how to PRONOUNCE these
non-Okrandian mu'meyqoq. Why the facination for these
useless syllables? They are not used in anything like
complete sentences. They do not use anything like romanized
Klingon spellings. There is no pronunciation guide.
I can see how one who has little interest in actually
speaking Klingon could find them equally valuable to all
the Okrandian words which such a person may never actually
use, but if you have a real interest in expressing thoughts
in the language, these extra words are useless. Most of
them are pseudonouns scattered among English sentences
because the authors of the books wanted to sound like their
characters could speak Klingon even though the authors
never bothered to learn how.
And that's why the vast majority of those who HAVE bothered
to learn how to speak the language find these words
outright offensive, be they from Paramount or not.
charghwI'