tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 25 14:16:57 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: That's not canon

Shamammd ([email protected]) 

In a message dated 3/25/2004 4:54:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email protected] writes:
The term "canon" refers to the body of "good" or "official" Klingon.
When it's used here it typically refers to "Okrandian canon", i.e. the
body of Klingon written by Marc Okrand and considered to be officially
correct.  (There's also "Trek canon", "show/movie canon", etc.)  The
materials in the movies, books, and tapes that Okrand worked on are
generally considered canon, but there's always some debate over things
that fall into grey areas like what Okrand wrote on a napkin (okay, I
exaggerate, but only a little) or whatever.
A "headless <-bogh> clause" is a verb with the <-bogh> suffix which
does not have a "head noun".  A head noun is defined wherever it is
in The Klingon Dictionary that describes <-bogh>.  (I don't have
my books with me because I'm not living at home.)

For example:
    <yaS vIqIpbogh> "officer whom I hit"
    <muqIpbogh yaS> "officer who hit me"

In the above, <yaS> is the head noun of the <-bogh> clauses.

But consider:
    *<vIqIpbogh> "(he) whom I hit"
    *<muqIpbogh> "(he) who hit me"

These two <-bogh> clauses are headless.  Headless <-bogh> clauses
are controversial for reasons that SuStel described in his post.
But most of the time they seem to be understandable, even if they
are grammatically odd.

So SuStel and I were just having a little discussion about whether
the <Dajatlhbogh vIyajbe'> recording in the Klingon CD-ROM game
should be considered "good/authoritative/officially correct Klingon".
I don't consider it so, because it isn't in the final product.  And
I guess also because the grammar is odd and seems to contradict a
previously known rule.  But he grants it more authority than I do in
seeing it as an example of Okrand using a headless <-bogh> clause.
qon De'vID

ROTFL! i am so messed up. i thought i understood with teh last post you made 
with SuStel. now i see that i was totally off- mark once again. i think i 
finally get it though about the headless bogh phrases. i just dont know if i used 
it properly in the first writing i made or not. i will have to go back and 
check it out. thanks for the info. 
BTW you have mentioned a few times lately that you are not at home. if you 
dont mind my asking (since i am now very curious) why are you not at home? Does 
your work require you to travel away from your home? i used to have to do 
this. i hated it very much. for long periods of time i was unable to be with my 
family. it was a very difficult time for my children, but necessity made it this 
way. in the end i think it did some good as it helped them become independent 
and that is a good thing for them now in their adult lives.

reH taHjaj tlhIngan Hol!

weQqul
bIjatlhnISchugh, tlhIngan Hol yIjatlh!
HovpoH 701332.9
Stardate 4232.5

Back to archive top level