tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 06 19:18:31 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?

Before referring to any comment..

The source I was querying is "Diplomatic Implausibility" by Keith R.a.
DeCandido ISBN 0-671-78554-0.

The Glossary was on pages 241-246
Acknowledgements on pages 247-248 mentioning MO on P247,L27 and Dr Lawrence
M Schoen on P248,L2.
Also on page 248 Lines 3-4 It stated "Marc Okrand, who kept my linguistics
straight and vetted the glossary".

But don't take my word for it see the book.

Once you've seen the book and assuming your one says the same.. (Now the
Question) Will this source be considered canon or will Marc have to validate
it in some other way?

If the answer to the above ends up as a, "yes it's canon" and you find there
are words that are considered as worthy of being in or adding to a
dictionary then I presume it would be ok for them to appear on lists of
canon words whether the one you maintain for the KLI or anyone else's.

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>


> I see that ghunchu'wI' has replied as well. I am concerned that the real
> meaning of this thread is getting splintered. I think it is getting
crushed
> under the weight of recursive discussion.

I agree so I will try to snip out most of the repeats

> My problem with the original post was that the question you say you
intended to > ask was not asked clearly. Since that time, instead of simply
starting over and
> stating the question clearly, we are all participating in too much talk
about
> the question without actually asking it or answering it.
>
> I'll start by seeing if I can imagine what your actual question would be
if you
> were to actually ask it, and then see if I can then answer that imaginary
> question. I'll try to do this in a way that best benefits the most people
here.
>
> The core of your question seems to be:
>
> What is canon?

It was of interest but not the actual question (which I have tried to ask at
the beginning of this email hopefully including all relevent information)...
Thank you for what followed though.. It was honestly very interesting..
>
[--snipped--]
>
> So, you seem to want to quote words from yet another novel that tosses a
few
> more proper names and animal names at us. You also seem to have a few
other
> words you'd like tossed in, though the details of these requests get lost
in
> all this talk about your question without actually asking it. I'll deal
with
> each in extracted quotes below.

What follows was repetative and you kept asking for source (see top of this
email) which had been specified but as you said lost in amongst
> ..
> > I believe infamous place names like [Suto'vo'qor] are important but
again
> > the list is yours to decide.
>
> Please cite for me the source you have for the name {Suto'vo'qor}. It does
seem
> to follow the basic rules of Klingon pronunciation, though it could have
been
> made up by anybody who knows how Klingon words are formed. I need to
confirm
> that Okrand actually made this up or confirmed that it was right. I can't
just
> take your word that Okrand "vetted" it. If I did that, I would have
included
> {'I'} in the list much earlier than I did.

I didn't expect you to take my word. I had quoted source but didn't know
that it was that part of the question you wanted repeating.  Hopefully this
has been fully stated clearly at the start of this email.
 ..
> > > Anything Okrand explicitly approves in a verifiable form is
> > > canon. We got a couple of nouns out of the novel "Sarek";
> > > mostly for animals we know little about, so it's not like the
> > > words pop up in daily conversation, but they did get added to
> > > the list. Meanwhile, the novel that has you so enthused here
> > > seems to offer a couple planet names. Did I miss anything?
> >
> > I believe so... Forgetting names what about
> > boqrat chej, ghojmoHwI', ghapoq, jeghpu'wI', ma' to'vor, mong'em,
ra'taj,
> > Suto'vo'qor (sorry had to put that name in) & tIqleH. (Full Glossary at
the
> > bottom)
>
> I don't remember seeing any of these words in your original message.



> I looked for something like this, but I didn't see them.

My fault but I didn't have the book with me and it was of lesser importance
until my question on whether the book was trusted or not had been settled.

> Now, since this message is so obscured by recursive
> discussion, I know nothing of the source for any of these
> words.
>
> {boqrat} is already in KGT.
> {chej} is already in KGT.
>
> I don't feel like I need to put every possible animal-organ-as-food
combination
> together as separate entries in the word list.

OK

> {ghojmoHwI'} is a simple suffixed word. It could go in or not and not make
much
> difference, since one can look at {ghoj}, {ghojmoH} and {ghojwI'}, which
are
> already in TKD and figure out {ghojmoHwI'} fairly easily. I try to reserve
> space in the New Words list for words that are either original (not
already in
> any of the other excluded word lists) or used in some way that you could
not
> easily figure out from other entries. I also include definitions of words
used
> in canon translations that differ from the gloss in the dictionary because
I
> can see that as useful to people wanting to understand the focus of a
> definition when it could be ambiguous from the gloss.

OK

> {ghapoq} - I have no idea what this word is supposed to mean.

Once I started quoting words I put this short list of those I felt you'd
look at and referred to a copy of the full Glossary at the end of the email
so that you could see the meaning as refered to in "Diplomatic
Impausibility". It is apparently a source but I'd check the book first.

[-snipped--]
>
> {jeghpu'wI'} - That's a simple suffixed word. One who has surrendered.
Unless
> Okrand made some sort of big deal of it, offering some shade of meaning
that
> isn't obvious, I wouldn't include it in the New Words List.

Well it was used in the book extensively and the meaning supplied was not
just people who have surrended as it went into the degree of surrended
stating that it did not apply to slaves... Please see seperate email only
showing the Glossary to avoid confusion (all words including those known).

> {ma' to'vor} - Looks a lot like a proper name. It would take some talking
to
> convince me that we need Yet Another Proper Name for the dictionary.

Mauk-to'Vor death ritual
Please see seperate email only showing the Glossary to avoid confusion (all
words including those known).

> {mong'em} - Is this the composit {mong + 'em}? Does it mean "area behind
the
> neck"? I could use some context here, and the source.

Its described as a sword maneuver behind the neck.

> {ra'taj} is already in KGT.

Yes it is but not that I can see as being the word for Raktajino. I haven't
seen that link before.

> {Suto'vo'qor} - What's the source for this? I need to confirm that Okrand
> actually did give this spelling. It has to be a source I can check. Your
word
> is not enough. Other people have to be able to check my sources or they
can't
> accept the list as authoratative.
>
> {tIqleH} - I don't know this word. I need the source and the meaning in a
form
> I can verify that Okrand has verified.

(Klingon) long sword as 1st seen on "Reunion" (TNG)

> My point here is that the New Words List is not a fan's collection of
every
> utterance that claims to be Klingon. It is a working vocabulary for people
who
> want to learn to use the language. It has two functions:
>
> 1. To supplement the published works of Marc Okrand to give the complete,
> official word list for the language.

Which was why I was asking if the book was a valid source before I went into
specific words

> 2. To filter out (by not including) words that don't belong in that
working
> vocabulary.
>
> I don't salivate at the opportunity to add new words. I consider each new
word
> and greet it with a zeal that is proportionate to the certainty that I
have
> that the word is really from Okrand and it will be useful to the Klingon
> speaking community. I feel no rush to pack in words I don't understand yet
or
> can't confirm yet are actually from Okrand.
>
> I can not accurately present words I don't understand, and I do not wish
to
> pollute the language with anything that didn't come from Okrand. None of
> this, "My girlfriend r'HSnaqtor says she thinks 'Stovokor' is spelled
> {SItovoQur} in Klingon."

And I had not said that. The books title got lost in the text but was
specified several times.. I tried not to quote words until verified.

[--snipped--]
> > > You still have not stated your "word". I'm apparently supposed
> > > to pick it out myself from this earlier Email that includes a lot of
> > > words, most of which are in the Addendum or KGT. Be direct
> > > and you'll get a more direct answer.
> >
> > I accept that I had not given you an example but that would not of
helped
> > answer whether or not the glossary was canon.
>
> WHAT glossary?

The one listed at the bottom of the email and still on your reply.. The
Source is also specified at the start of the glossary section that was at
the bottom.. To save peoples emails I have removed it from the bottom of
this reply and sent it seperately to the mailing list.

> > Which was the question and
> > specified in the first five lines of the original email.
>
> No, it wasn't.

I was corrected, it was line 6 but the question referred to the sentence
preceding it in line 5.

[--snipped--]

> Okay, fine. What is your question?
>
> Just start from scratch. Don't refer back to anything. Just ask the
question.
>
> Don't give me words without definitions or sources.

The source was respecified at the top of the copy of the glossary attached
to the email you replied to.

[--snipped--]
> It sounds like you crussify easily. I'm just trying to figure out what you
> want, and whether or not you are offering me anything I can use for the
list.
> If you DO, then I really AM interested. I'm trying to stay open about
this,
> though your rather indirect style of communication makes this difficult.
>
[--snipped--]
> If you can't improve on this, then you are about to become ignored, since
I'm
> becoming convinced that dealing with you is a lot like wasting my time.
You can > still convince me otherwise, but it will require a change in
communication
> style real soon now if you want that result.

I hope this email is more understandable.

> > Yes there was a misunderstanding but surely once
> > pointed out you could've let it be and not continued to have a go.
>
> Just start over. Ask your question. Present your words, their definitions
and
> sources.

See seperate email for words and definitions as presented in the "Diplomatic
Implausibility" Glossary

> > > Will
> >
> > qe'San
> >
> > Now the full Glossary as promised thanks to De'vID:
[--Glossary  snipped and sent separately--]

qe'San

Back to archive top level