tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 23 13:36:03 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: DS9: Once More into the Breach
William H. Martin wrote:
>
> The point you are missing is that Okrand has given us a
> description of clipping, which can explain the "problems" in
> ST3. I don't think that even in KGT he has given us an
> explanation for the line in ST5 about the Romulan and the
> Klingon being referred to as {romuluSngan je tlhIngan}. That's
> just plain wrong. It's not a dialect. It's not clipped. It's
> just wrong.
>
> Maybe it is a dialect in KGT that I missed. If so, please point
> it out to me.
>
> charghwI' 'utlh
>
Just doing some research:
KGT p.139, where Okrand says:
"When it comes to grammar, the younger generation is innovative as well. One of the more noteworthy characteristics of their
speech is the placement of conjunctions joining nouns. [...] younger Klingons are often heard putting it before the final noun.
This is a common error [...]"
So, it seems to be plain wrong.
But:
"It is interesting to note that in earlier stages of the language (and the form of language still used in many rituals and in some
forms of writing), at least under certain circumstances, the conjunction did indeed precede the final noun [...].
It seems like Okrand got aware of the error and tried a workaround (again). I believe one can count it as dialect or /accepted
error/ as long as one talks about young Klingons, but i am certain this sentence (romuluSngan je tlhIngan) was neither spoken by a
child nor can it be counted ritualized speech. qar'a'? Which leaves /romuluSngan je tlhIngan/ wrong...
voqbe'wI'