tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 30 04:20:33 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

models of excellent language use

MorphemeAddict ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol taghwI']

From Nick Nicholas in response to a post by Mark E. Shoulson:
"And while you don't want to be quoted on Krankor refusing to be involvedin 
looking at the KBTP [Klingon Bible Translation Project]... I am astonished. 
Does this man know what being list grammarian means? It means you have a duty to 
uphold Klingon linguistic standards. And I've said it before: works like the 
KBTP and any Shapkespeare we come up with will put him out of a job; *they* 
will lay down the law for Klingon stylistics and grammar, *they* will be the 
model in print for Klingonists to come. Like it or not, the KBTP is going ahead; 
blame Kevin Wilson and Lawrence Schoen if you wanted it nipped in the bud. If 
Krankor does not involve himself in setting the stylistics of this work 
straight, whether he has to hold his nose or no, he is quite simply not doing his 
job. That's his choice; others will."   (19931207 19:36:25, #52)

Nick said that 10 1/2 years ago.  And even now non-canon work is hardly ever 
cited as an example of good Klingon.  The principal literature in Klingon is 
NOT being held up as the model to follow.  For that matter, neither is any of 
the work in "jatmey" or "Qo'noS QonoS".  The attitude of most of the experts on 
this list seems to be that if it isn't directly from Okrand, it simply isn't 
worth considering.  So instead of studying SeQpIr and ghIlghameS to improve 
our language usage, we study only the paltry samples of text from Marc Okrand.  

I expect Nick would be very disappointed.  I know I am.

lay'tel SIvten

Back to archive top level