tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 07 02:26:43 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" <[email protected]>


> >> {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).
>
> The specific meaning as used in the book was devised by DeCandido.  The
> word  {jeghpu'wI'} itself was the closest simple grammatical rendition of
> the intended meaning that a small group of people could come up with
> quickly.  [Before he asked for assistance, DeCandido was apparently ready
> to name them {charghwI'}.]
>
> This, at least, was emphatically *not* an official Okrandian coinage.

It was seeing the acknowledgement to "Dr Lawrence M. Schoen and his Cronies
at the Klingon Language Institute" that made me think that most of Marc
Okrands help was at the end.. But that was the main reason for asking if the
Glossary of "Diplomatic Implausibility" by Keith R A DeCandido would be
regarded as canon.

I would suspect it likely that most if not all original words are penned by
the author but if MO vetted it, has he thereby made it canon. If it applies
to the words it would necessarily apply to the meanings as they were there
too. He may of added some depth. I realise we can't know the answer to the
degree of his involvement.. Which is why I wondered if the vetting process
validated it.

> >> {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.
>
> Read page 96.  Over half a page is devoted to the topic.

Thank you.... This does demonstrate that Raktajino is in fact [ra'taj]+cream
and not ra'taj alone.

> -- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh
qe'San



Back to archive top level