tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 19 18:01:53 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: end of Daj thread? [ Nope ]
>... What I primarily object to is dogmatic explanations of words and
> usages which were never well defined in the first place.
First place? Yes. Okrand never anticipated that the language would get
this far. So he didn't get very indepth.
> ... Using simple glosses, such as appear in TKD, as complete
> definitions is ludicrous to me. Behind these simple glosses there should
be
> complex and often multiple meanings, each word with its own etymology and
web
> of associations and possible contexts (assuming a real klingon universe,
> etc.).
And since TKD, via other books and multiple interviews, he has given us much
more information, and clarified many definitions. Many words do have the
complex meanings you are looking for.
These people that have been telling you about [Daj] have all met Marc
Okrand, and talked with him. They are familiar with his style.
DloraH