tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 30 02:05:37 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: qama'



In a message dated 3/28/1999 11:45:48 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

<< I've
 got a feeling he's going to keep using aspect the way *he* thinks about
 it, instead of the way TKD describes it, because he still thinks aspect
 in Klingon means the same thing his linguistics texts do when they talk
 about aspect.  >>
=============
Actually, after reading numerous canon sentences of MO's hand, I will continue
using Aspect as "I" understand it.  I see that MO does understand Aspect quite
well.

As to why I have said TKD is [not often] wrong, so have many other persons
pointed out mistakes in TKD.  {gan} and {Hagh} are blatant errors.  Even in
other writings there MAY be errors, probably because the proofreaders (if any)
were hasty.  In KGT, {wI'oj} is EITHER wrong OR is an unexplained anomaly of
Klingon grammar.  Okay, to "perfective."  TKD is EITHER quite incomplete and
not quite accurate in its explanation of "perfective" as used globally, but
differently in each language of Earth which uses Aspect, OR this is what
"perfective" means to Klingon grammarians.

I have agreed to use what TKD says in order to comply with the group,
(disclaimer coming!!!) even if that means that I have acceded to a group which
will be proven wrong.  I certainly have been misusing {jang}, {jach}, {Qub},
etc.  I have been putting the quotation right after them.  Examples:  jach
SuvwI':  tlhIngan maH!  I have had to change to jach SuvwI', jatlh:  tlhIngan
maH!  Why was I using those words wrong?  They appeared to ME to be words of
speaking.  They appeared to ME to work the same way as {jatlh}.  That's what I
got for reading only TKD.  Of course, in this case, there was no evidence
inside or outside TKD that I would be wrong.  Only when MO declared how it
works in Klingon did I know to change.

peHruS



Back to archive top level