tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 08 20:28:22 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Qaghqoq

     I'm willing to go with the grammarian's common view of using {-wIj} for
collective nouns specifying collectives of language capable entities FOR THIS
LIST, though I think this should be placed on the short list of things to
talk with Okrand about soon. I think it would be more frequently useful in
conversation than {bom}. I was somewhat dissappointed in the things chosen by
our representatives to settle with Okrand, given the many more significant
things that were not mentioned, and given that nobody made any effort to
gather suggestions from the group before using up limited access with Okrand
to get us such a short word list. An example list I might recommend:

     How do we best handle referents? "I named my dog 'Sasha'."

     {maH} is notated as a number forming element, so it does not stand alone
as "ten". There is confusion over whether the same is true for higher order
number terms like {vatlh}, {SaD/SanID}, {netlh}, etc. because in the word
list, {maH} is listed as "ten (number forming element) (num)", while the
other words do not contain that "(number forming element)" entry in the word
list, though they are listed in TKD 5.2 as number forming elements. 

     Also examples in canon of time expressions violate the rules stated in
TKD more often than they follow them, either being simply mistaken {cha'maH
wa' vatlh rep} for "noon", or ignoring the {vatlh} altogether, like {vagh
rep}, which is never justified in the description of how to form time
expressions.

     For that matter, it would be nice to have spelled out how to simply say
"twelve hundred hours", given that the number forming description does not
tell us how to do that. I could see it being {wa' maH cha' valth rep},
{wa'maH cha' valth rep}, my least favorite: {wa'maH cha'valth rep},
{wa'maHcha'valth rep}, {wa'maHcha' vatlh rep}, or the more easily parsed
{wa'SaD cha'vatlh rep}.

     I think our time-setting conventions formed here are good, like
{qaStaHvIS...} for durations and simple noun expressions for specific dates
or times, without {-Daq}. I would like them confirmed by Okrand.

     I'd like Okrand to address the whole {-ghach} issue, with special
attention to both parts of the Proechel interpretation. I hope Okrand accepts
that {-ghach} cannot be used with bare verb stems and rejects that any verb
can be used as a noun, but I'd rather have it from him and accept whatever he
says, hoping that whoever presents it to him will not apply undue influence
toward one interpretation or the other.

     Fractions. PLEASE.

     For vocabulary, I want a Klingon word that expresses the sarcastic "So?"
better than {jISaHbe'}. I want a verb for "spit", given both the
characteristics of the language and the cultural interest in the activity as
a means of expressing disfavor. I'd like a spelled out list of all the
vocabulary added in CK and PK, so we know we have the words spelled right and
have as much usage information as given the other words in TKD. I have a
personal interest in PK's word I foggily remember as {*Qeq} or {*qoq} or
somesuch used in the very beginning of the tape to mean what I THINK is
"deserve" in what I think I remember to be {bIyIntaH 'e' Da*[whatever]be'}.
It would be a most useful word, though he never addresses it again, and I've
never seen it on ANYBODY'S supplemental word list.

     And, remember, I do want to have established whether {qorDu'wIj} is
preferred by Klingons over {qorDu'wI'}, and would like it more explicitly
stated that irregular plural nouns are used with {'ar}, while nouns that use
plural suffixes are changed to the singular before using {'ar}, if this is
indeed true. Related to that, does the verbal prefix reflect the singular or
plural noun associated with {'ar}?

     Does this sound like a good list? What other things should be
candidates? Should we polish the list by some manner of popular vote in order
to reflect the priorities of the group?

     I'm becoming frustrated with what I'm interpreting to be the nature of
the group to be competitive at any cost. We'd rather fight to see who wins on
an issue than resolve that which will best serve the communications
capabilities of the language and conservative interpretation of canon. I do
not understand why people seem to think that having one person bring forth an
idea that could benefit the group somehow diminishes respect for others who
have made many great contributions to the language. It feels like it is less
important which way issues are resolved than it is from whom the ideas
originate. I hope that I am grossly mistaken in this perception.

     In particular, I have profound respect for Krankor and strong respect
for Guido, yet recently, it feels like I'm supposed to give up on what I
think is both right and most useful and clarifying in order to avoid showing
disrespect for these people I continue to respect.

charghwI'

Back to archive top level