Re: maDISnIS'a'?

["Sangqar (Sean Healy)" <sangqar@hotmail.com>]

>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?

maj.  DaH qayaj.

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com