tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 05 23:27:55 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: Mole's tale

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: Mole's tale
• Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 02:27:43 -0500 (EST)

In a message dated 97-11-04 14:54:09 EST, you write:

<< > There exists a possibility that
 > Klingon will evolve into two dialects: one based on canon and Okrand's
 > explanations, and one based on the actual, practical usage.
 
 pab'e' neH 'angpu'bogh Okrand reH vIlo' 'e' vInID.  jIjatlhmeH motlh qay'be'

 pab wISovbogh.  pab chu' poQbe'lu'.  pab chu' 'angchugh Okrand qabbe' pab
'ach 
 poQbe'lu'.
 
 I try to always use grammar which Okrand has revealed to us.  I usually have

 no trouble speaking with the grammar we know.  We don't need new grammar.  
 It's not bad if Okrand gives us some, but we don't need it.
  >>

Holmey pImbe' HutlhtaHbogh tlhIngan Hol'e' 'oghbogh Okrand lujatlh Hoch
ghojwI'pu' 'e' vItulbej.  tlhIngan Hol yejHaDDaq tlhIngan Hol'e' neH 'oghbogh
Okrand wIghojmo' 'ej wIlo'mo' yejHaDvam vImuvta'.  teH; yIn parHol
*tlhIngan-aase* je; 'ach ta' Hol neH vIparHa'.

I truly hope Klingon remains the Okrand language without other dialects.  One
of the reasons I like being a KLI member is that we attempt to learn and use
only Okrand's Klingon.  True, parHol and klingonaase exist; but I admire only
ta' Hol.

peHruS

• Prev by Date: Re: Sentence as Object
• Next by Date: Re: Question as object
• Prev by thread: RE: Mole's tale
• Next by thread: RE: Mole's tale
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level