tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 21 09:49:13 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Some risque (not "risky") interpretations
>Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 10:22:57 -0800
>From: "Christian Matzke" <[email protected]>
>On 20 Jan 96 at 8:56, Susan Farmer wrote:
>> You have a word *spoken* on a tape, that y'all have decided is
>> spelled /ngagh/. It's obvious to me that the spelling of the word
>> on the tape should be /nga'/ becuase of /nga'chuq/. Why are y'all
>> so Certain that it's /ngagh/ when MO hasn't spoken? (Except to
>> provide /nga'chuq/??)
>Because Marc Okrand GAVE us the correct spelling via Dr. Schoen in
>HolQeD 3:3. If the case had been less clear-cut I'm sure ~mark would
>have mentioned it. He's very careful about that sort of stuff (cf.
>his article on the new words from Power Klingon in HolQeD 3:2
>for proof of that).
*blush* Thank you for the compliment!
Indeed, "nga'" and "ngagh" do seem to be different.. For one thing, if you
listen to the tape it's pretty clear that he's saying -gh and not -'
(though it must be admitted that -' when emphasized does sound sort of like
-gh, according to TKD). It turns out that "ngagh" actually was one of the
words I got wrong when writing that article; I'd heard it as "nagh", and
Okrand corrected it to "ngagh." But at least we have the straight of it
now.
~mark