tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 20 20:27:17 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: QeD De'wI' ngermey
ja' ...Paul:
>...I have to wonder if perhaps
>there's shouldn't possible be an honorary canon source, like perhaps Dr.
>Schoen, or perhaps some kind of tribunal to review and vote on proposals,
>or to brainstorm and solve problems, fill holes?
We already brainstorm and *find* holes. I'd much rather leave them as
holes -- clearly marked, and carefully avoided -- than see Klingon turn
into a "language by committee" endeavor. My task is to use the language as
it is, not to force it to become something based on my preferences. Sure,
I'd be happy to have a word meaning "hole" in general, but I can already
discuss just about anything I want to without needing it (unless I had a
need to directly translate the English term).
You ask "What is Klingon for?" I answer "It's for people to speak."
>I suppose the other question is, if I were to author "Software Engineering
>for Klingons" and put forth the use of existing words for idiomatic
>purposes, would I be wasting my time going down a path inherently wrong?
Choosing terms and explaining why you chose them is not wrong. Using the
terms you have explained, and perhaps even using shorter versions of them
when you can get away with it, is not wrong. But if you tried to promote
your terms as "the" ones to use in general, that would be wrong.
-- ghunchu'wI'