tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 30 15:42:34 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: vaj KLBC
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: vaj KLBC
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 97 22:39:49 UT
jatlh peHruS:
> I do really want to see tlhIngan Hol expand!!! My argument was directed at
> SuStel. He has narrowed the usage of tlhIngan Hol more than anyone I have
> ever encountered in KLI circles.
lughbejqu'bogh tlhIngan Hol wIjatlh 'e' vItungHa'mo', qatIchpu'chugh, Do'Ha'.
lughbogh tlhIngan Hol wIjatlh vIneH.
chaq lughbogh tlhIngan Hol wIjatlh DaneH.
Dap Dajatlh DaneHchugh vaj yImej jay'!
Look, I don't care if you speculate. But don't expect me to agree with
whatever you say. I only agree with someone when I am convinced. I know full
well there's more Klingon out there than we're aware of. What you want to do
is make up something, and say, "It's logical, so we should use it." What I
say is "It's logical, but Klingons may not do it that way. In that case,
you're teaching others wrong Klingon."
So go ahead and say *{SopDaq} if you like. Just don't do it in KLBC, whether
I'm the BG or not, and don't expect me to have to agree with it, just because
you think it's logical.
I still don't see why you can't just accept that Klingons may very well say
{SopmeH Daq}. I'll bet that if KCD hadn't come out, you'd put up a fight for
*{ghojtaj}, if you wanted to say that sort of thing. And you'd be wrong.
> Then he used {qI'} to mean "signing
> (autographing) a book"; and, TKD (my source) distinctly glosses {qI'} as
> "sign (a treaty)." Since Sustel insists I use tlhIngan Hol only as we have
> already seen in canon, I have challenged his usage of {qI'} here.
As I have explained elsewhere, the gloss is a bit vague. I agree that this
may be wrong, but (1) I'm not perfect (as unbelievable as that idea may
sound), (2) I'm not making sweeping rules about the entire language like you
are, and (3) I'm getting a little tired of this vindictiveness.
> Of course,
> maybe he has seen {qI'} used in canon somewhere I have not. I do not have
> MSN, for example. He may be able to prove he has correctly used {qI'} for
> "autograph." I want to know his proof.
*blush* You finally caught me with my secret bag of canon. Sign onto MSN and
go to the Marc Okrand forum. The proof is there, for our priveledged eyes
only.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97330.4