Re: maDISnIS'a'?

[Andrew Strader <strader@decode.is>]

qon Sangqar:
>I'm not sure what you mean here.  Since there are no native speakers, 
>Okrandian canon stands in the same relation to the language as native speech 
>would to a natural language.  

That is true in an external sense. But there is another side to the coin. It 
is also possible to consider Klingon to be a fully-developed language, which 
Okrand is the field linguist studying and reporting his successive 
discoveries. That is the role-playing side of it. That is the capacity in 
which the language is viewed when something is officially published about it, 
whether by Okrand or the KLI, e.g. HolQeDs, Hamlet, Gilgamesh, etc? From that 
point of view, don't you think the language is treated differently?

-- 
Andrew Strader