tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 25 05:08:12 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

use and purpose of this list. <Re: tera'Daq yIn'a' 'ej pIv'a' tlhIngan Hol?

MorphemeAddict ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol taghwI']

In a message dated 2004-07-25 2:20:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[email protected] writes:
> The sooner you come to terms with these things, the better.  Now can you
> please stop stirring up trouble on the list?  It's really getting old.
> 
The Klingon language means different things to different people.  I accept, 
albeit with frustration, the three points you made about how Klingon different 
from English: i.e., it's artificial, it has no native speakers, and Okrand is 
the sole source of canon.

With that in mind, it's still a language, and as such, it and its texts merit 
study and analysis.  Some of what I post to the list is simply to get my own 
findings "out there", so I and others don't keep re-inventing the wheel.  With 
the archive search inoperative though, this reason is less important, since 
even when the messages are available, they're hard to locate.  

Actually being able to speak Klingon is not my main reason for studying it, 
although I'm getting better at it.  But it's just one of the languages I'm 
interested in right now.  Comparing and contrasting languages is the essence of 
linguistics.  So I'm puzzled by others' reluctance, even hostility, to doing it 
with Klingon.

When I encounter something in text, be it canon or otherwise, that I don't 
understand or that doesn't seem right, I ask about it.  I understand that one of 
the reasons this list exists is just so people can do that.

Some of what I post is in reply to someone else's question or comment.  I 
answer the questions I can.  Lately I've expanded the scope of my answers as a 
result of building my own canon database.  I'm still exploring it.  

Some people think that pointing out all the defects and problems and errors 
in canon is nitpicking.  I disagree.  I believe that canon is a better source 
of information when its limits are well understood.  If there is an error, or a 
perceived error, then discussion of that error often proves fruitful, and 
sometimes can be related to other topics.  

lay'tel SIvten

Back to archive top level