tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 29 16:56:59 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Verbs of Motion
> ja' SuStel:
> >Sometimes, Okrand's mistakes lead to more interesting bits. We winced
when
> >we heard {wa' tera'ngan je wa' romuluSngan} come out of Vixis' lips, but
now
> >we know that it's a common grammatical error perpetrated by Klingon
youths
> >to put the conjunction in the wrong place. Okrand realized his mistake
> >(either on his own or through a Klingonist) and made it "correct."
>
> Whoa! I don't know if it's your vision or your brain that's fogged, but
> you've made a completely incorrect conclusion. He quite explicitly says
> that it's a common *error*, that it is *not* correct. He didn't "fix" a
> mistake made in the film (and in his notes). He labeled it as a mistake
> that happens sometimes. It's a "canonical error" along the lines of the
> {HaD}/{Hagh} mistake in TKD.
And that's exactly what I meant. Nothing fogged here. Note the quotation
marks around correct. I'm sorry I can't make myself clear to either you or
charghwI'. I DID point out that it's a common error in the paragraph you
quoted. I also made the inference (unsupported by any direct evidence, like
Okrand admitting such) that Okrand noticed or was told about the error, and
then "explained it away." Instead of simply saying "Oops, I goofed," he
made an effort to leave himself blameless by saying that it was VIXIS'
error, not his. That's what it boils down to.
Note: I ADMIRE THIS. But not until it occurs. Until the "fix," I will
recognize an error for what it is. Otherwise, I'd have to start admitting
that noon is {cha'maH wa' vatlh rep}, etc. There is no committee to decide
which Okrand errors are actually errors and which are features of the
language.
> >When I see errors in Klingon, I don't automatically assume they were
> >intentional. (For instance, I am not at all convinced that mislabeling
> >{bachHa'} as a noun in KGT was intentional. I think it was an ironic
> >coincidence. I could be wrong, of course. I also think that annotating
it
> >as a likely Okrand joke is akin to assuming that Okrand can do no wrong.)
>
> You obviously missed the part where Okrand as much as admitted the joke.
> Lawrence wrote:
> >I was talking with Marc about this yesterday. I mentioned that the only
> >problem with the {bachHa'} error in the book was that it was, by
definition,
> >canonical. I could hear him smiling over the phone as he said, "But
that's
> >only in the Klingon to English side. It's correct the other way."
Yes, I must have missed this, or forgotten it. It isn't annotated with the
"likely intentional" listing in the "New Words" list. Perhaps it should be?
Here's what I'll do: I'll go along with everyone who practices Okrand
worship. If a present or former BG says Okrand meant something, it must not
be questioned. (Go ahead and flame me all you want for saying such a
sacreligious thing. If I try to defend myself civilly, my words get all
twisted out of context anyway.)
SuStel tlhIv
Stardate 99994.6