tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 18 16:12:22 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: help me explain
I don't believe that there are 2 *styles.* There is only one *correct* way
to write tlhIngan Hol. I don't accept Paramount Hol. and I'm trying to
teach others to follow the tlhIngan Hol but I need to explain the grammer
rule . It has nothing to do with what style I prefer to use. My feeling is
that if you're going to use Klingon words, write them correctly in
tlhIngan Hol.Some of the folks I"m trying to teach don't know the rules.
Respectfully,
malqa
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 [email protected] wrote:
> jatlh malqa:
> >I"m trying to explain to others
> >why it is incorrect in *tlhIngan Hol* to write their name with
> >the format of *any consenent + ' * such as K'.......,etc .And that
> >B'Elanna is actually incorrect , it would be written correctly in tlhIngan
> >Hol as be'elanna (unless I myself goofed up repeating what I was told here
> >previously). Please help me with the grammer rule of *'* in names
> >especially at the beginning of the name. I've noticed that many members
> >of Klingon clubs use this format ,but isn't it incorrect ?I'm confused .
> >I hope that someone understand what I'm trying to say.
>
> You're talking about two different styles of transliteration here. One
> is the tlhIngan Hol everyone on this mailing list understands and
> accepts. Another is the style that the Star Trek writers prefer. This
> latter style ignores tlhIngan Hol completely, making a bunch of foreign-
> sounding words (but not too foreign) with English capitalization plus a
> bunch of apostrophes sprinkled in. {qempeq}, for example, is an actual
> tlhIngan Hol name. K'mpec is how Paramount renders it. It is not
> tlhIngan Hol, but it is not necessarily wrong.
>
> BTW, I believe {be'elana} only has one {n}.
>
be'elanna or B'Elanna in Paramount Hol is indeed spelled with 2 n's.