tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 15 06:31:44 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: archaic style?
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: archaic style?
- Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 18:24:30 -0400
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> (message from KLI Rount Table Account on Sat, 13 Aug 1994 19:48:58 -0400 (EDT))
>From: KLI Rount Table Account <[email protected]>
>Date: Sat, 13 Aug 1994 19:48:58 -0400 (EDT)
>>
>>
>> Guidovo':
>>
>> >But what do y'all think of this idea. I don't know how else to go about
>> >archaizing tlhIngan Hol.
>>
>> Use -neS a lot.
>>
>> -QumpIn 'avrIn
>I agree with the sentiment. It seems a safe way to go. I do not like
>the notion of developing lots of voculary based on an unsupported theory
>of word order. The speculation is interesting in its own right, but
>taking it any further to me means you're not doing Klingon any more.
>Sorry, that's just my view on it.
I have to agree with Lawrence here. Using "-neS", maybe using long-winded
cirumlocutions that conform to modern grammar, okay. But when you start
inventing syntax and vocabulary, you're not doing Klingon any more than you
would be if you did that in "modern" Klingon. If someone looked at Modern
English and the vestiges of older construction we retain and tried to
reverse-engineer what archaic English was like, the result would not sound
anything like archaic English. More likely, the modern ear would hear it
as Bizarro English or Yoda English. The only one who can invent Klingon is
Marc Okrand. It is he who invents Modern Klingon, it is he who may or may
not choose to tell us about archaic Klingon.
>Lawrence
~mark