tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 30 14:25:01 2001

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Loose canon



[RE: Dajatlhbogh vIyajlaHbe' on KCD]

jatlh ghunchu'wI':
> The sound file in question lacks context, making it less useful as an
> example than it might be.  It's possible that it was misrecorded and the
> first word was lost.  It's also possible that the apparent missing object
> is intentional, and it was intended to be used with another sound file in
> front of it, perhaps {mu'} or {mu'tlhegh}.  That it is a useful example of
> grammatical tlhIngan Hol is only one of many possibilities.

Your possibilities are certainly possible, but not very likely.  There's no
evidence with any of the other files that words were meant to be stuffed on
either side of them.  None of the others is apparently missing any words.
The likeliest option is that this was an ultra-elided relative clause that
ended up headless.

> >So?  It's canonical Klingon if Okrand wrote it, spoke it or approved
it...
>
> It's also possible that this particular phrase was *not* approved, and
> that's why it's not used in the software.

Extremely unlikely.  I'm certain Okrand wasn't orchestrating the software in
this way.  His role was surely to provide the information, training, and
voice for the software as THEY wanted to create it.  He's no programmer.
Your suggestion is possible, but very unlikely.

Let's face it: Okrand said /Dajatlhbogh vIyajlaHbe'/, and he meant it at the
time.  And as far as we are concerned, though, there's no reason to consider
this to be an absolute go-ahead to use headless relative clauses.  Okrand
has made mistakes before.  If he was given this line again, he would
probably think twice, or more, about it.  We need a lot more proof before we
accept something like this as normal.

SuStel
Stardate 1827.8


Back to archive top level