tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 06 02:44:02 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: jIH vIchuHlu' - Words mentioned earlier but not in the New Words list?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Anderson" <>

> jumISqu'moH, qe'San.  My first reading of your original note sure gave
> the impression that you were asking if that list of Klingon planet names
> belonged in the New Words List.  That's what the note's subject line is
> talking about, after all.  Since you say that's not what you were asking,
> I'll believe you, but neither of your first messages made that very clear.

Sorry.. Communication is a two way thing and I as the instigator accept
responsibilty for my message... For that I hereby appologize to Will,
ghunchu'wI' and anyone else having to read my negative reply.

> >> > But the question is still valid. Is the source
> >> > considered canon by the KLI.
> The narrow definition of "canon" which is generally agreed upon by the
> KLI's most active members is "that which comes officially from Marc
> Okrand."  If Okrand didn't write what you refer to as "the source", the
> answer is almost certainly "No."

But what about this.. If MO vetted it do the KLI consider it canon... or to
put the question another way... Can I use words from it without getting
unjustly slated by other members? (I've left this in but you do answer this

> >I accept that I had not given you an example but that would not of helped
> >answer whether or not the glossary was canon. Which was the question and
> >specified in the first five lines of the original email.
> [Not to be unecessarily pedantic or anything, but the question appears in
> the *sixth* line of the email, even after disregarding the blank third
> line.

Ok! Ok! yes it is but I said 5th as the question refers to the sentence
before it on the 5th line... But yes its on the 6th text line.

>It also looks very much just like an introductory comment to what I
> -- and Will as well, it seems -- took as the real question of why they
> aren't in the New Words List.]


> >If you really want one.. The word that got me going was jeghpu'wI'.
> Oh, this is just *too* good! :-D  The source of that word, believe it or
> not, happens to be Will Martin.  [I've got the email logs to jog his
> if he doesn't recall the occasion.]

:-)  And if applicably canon I would've thought that it was worthy of
concideration for inclusion on the list. If not I would be interested in why
if only so that I know the criteria for any other words that I may come

> >Now the full Glossary as promised thanks to De'vID:
>'re guilty again of presenting a bunch of words and asking about
> their legitimacy without considering whether they're already in the known
> vocabulary.

Now, I am offended.. I specified the tlhIngan words (not including any
proper names) earlier in the same email that I attached this glossary... I
refered to the full glossary attached at the bottom so that the message
wasn't overly extended...i.e. it was for reference if anyone wanted further
info like the Terran to the listed words. I also wanted to credit De'vID for
the email where he typed out the glossary..

> Of the entries you copied here, most can be found in TKD or
> KGT.  Only a few are "novel", and half of *them* are proper names.  The
> only general words (all nouns, for what it's worth) in the list which
> aren't already in the dictionary are the names of two animals, a
> a martial arts move, and a weapon.

I listed/specified in the message tlhIngan for, "stewed bok-rat liver",
"teacher, mentor", "a condiment", "conquered people", "Death Ritual", "a
bladed weapon maneuver", "connecting a known word to Raktajino",
"Sto-vo-Kor", "a long sword".

These I could not find in TKD, KGT or the New Word List.. And with the
exception of Sto-Vo-kor didn't fall into the category Will didn't want to
know about.

But specific words were listed....

> So your original question appears to boil down to this:
> "Are {gha'poq}, {ghISnar}, {Qa'Da'}, {mong'em}, and {tIqleH} considered
> proper 'canonical' Klingon words?"
> I have no special authority, but without an acknowledgement by Marc Okrand
> that he indeed provided these words, I'm not going to put them in *my*
> personal dictionary.  Since most, if not all, of them are straightforward
> transcriptions of terms used on the Star Trek TV show, I don't have much
> reason to think that Okrand did provide them.

Thank you that answered my question with ref to this particular source
although they weren't the only words listed.

I take it from that statement that for words to be canon they need to be
written by Okrand and Vetting by him is not sufficient? (That is a general
question relevant for any other works that may appear)

> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh

This may not be a Klingon thing to say but, "Thank you for reply".


Back to archive top level