tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 24 07:12:04 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Freedom from Ignorance and the KLI

According to Susan Farmer:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the encouragement to free myself from the bounds of ignorance  :-)
> 
> I'd like to get all the back issues of the KLI journal, but I don't have
> the funds to do so at the present time.  What are *your* recommendations
> for the Best Back Issues to get.  (Especially regarding new words, 
> clarifications, etc.)
> 
> Thanks.
> Susan 
> 
> 

Thumbnail sketches of volumes of probable interest to you:

V1#1 has a fine article: "First Steps Towards a Phonological
Theory of Klingon" by Allen C. Wechesler, which does not
contain any additional vocabulary to TKD, but might affect any
name you might eventually choose...

V1#3 has "Additional Vocabulary" quoted from _veS QonoS_, an
Okrand approved source. The definitions are a little weak, not
indicating part of speech and sometimes containing somewhat
confusing terms, like "sex (i.e., perform sex; always subject)"
Also, many of the words (but not all of them) are in the
appendix of TKD.

V1#4 has "Conversational Klingon Explored" by David Barron in
it giving vocabulary from that audio tape, though it has a
couple errors in it. If you get that, you might note the
following corrections *IF YOU ACCEPT MY HUMBLE OPINION*.

{pas} should, of course be {paS}.

{wasH} should be {wagh}.

TKD already contains HoSghaj, so the paragraph dedicated to
this as a new word can be ignored.

The word used for baggage on the tape is {tep}, not {ta'}. In
TKD it is listed as "cargo" and one assumes that Okrand
considered that to be sufficiently synonymous with "baggage" to
use it as such. Thus, another paragraph in that article can be
ignored.

I am intentionally not recommending the vocabulary extentions
suggested in Glen Proechel's "Extending Klingon Kinship Terms"
because I think it never should have happened. That's in V2#3.

V2#4 has "Okrand's Notes" giving several new words and new,
expanded usage of some older words. The definitions come in the
form of a paragraph's discussion of the word, which is good,
though it does not fit in well to the format of TKD, and once
again, the part of speech must be inferred, since it is not
indicated. This inconsistency of format is a little frustrating
to those of us compiling our own comprehensive dictionaries...

V3#1 has "One-Way Words" by Roger Sorenson, listing most of the
words which exist in the Klingon-to-English side of TKD, but
are absent from the English-to-Klingon side of TKD, or vise
versa. The degree to which this list might be considered
complete depends on what you consider to be an absent entry. I
think this is one of the best collections of such words to
date, though my own method to this problem was to do something
you almost certainly do not wish to do, since it requires an
irrational dedication to the task.

I typed the entire dictionary into my word processor. As I
added each word to the Klingon-English side, I copied it into
the English-Klingon side of my document, making multiple
entries for each word with multiple synonyms listed on the
English side. Once I finished that task, I proofread the
English-Klingon side of TKD against the same section of my own
dictionary. I marked every missing word from TKD with a comment
and I went back into the Klingon-English side of my document to
add in any words that TKD had in the English-Klingon side that
were missing from my document, and I similarly commented on its
omission from that side of TKD.

Since then, I've added all the words from all the new sources
and commented on those sources. The idea is that now, I have a
dictionary I can use while writing, and while I have use of all
the words that Okrand has approved, I ALSO have notation of
source for all the words, so I will know to list all the words
I am using in my document that are not in TKD so that people
who only have TKD can figure out what I am saying.

That's the idea, anyway. It is a work perpetually in process.
At this point, I believe it has all of the words in it and it
is mostly correct, though I'm still making corrections. For
those at qep'a', the word is {HoS choHwI'}, not {HoS chHoHwI'}.
There may be a few more of those {chH} infested words, since
I'm using a font where {ch} is one character and if I
absentmindedly type in the two letters "ch" then the computer
reads that as {chH}.

I don't know about V3#2 BECAUSE MY COPY OF IT NEVER HAS
ARRIVED! I got to see it briefly at qep'a', but I don't have my
own copy. It contains an article written by me which may
accomplish a first: It may fail to be among the most criticized
and corrected articles in HolQeD.

It seems that when one has the boldness to point out the
mistakes of others, one then becomes a lightning rod for the
criticism of others (especially when one is not altogether
accurate in determining what is and is not a mistake). At least
I'm becoming better at it...

charghwI'

Back to archive top level