tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 26 14:46:40 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: That's not canon
SuStel:
> /SIS/ is in TKD, but information on how to use it is not. Okrand's *use*
> of /SIS/ was canonized by someone's report of it at a convention.
De'vID:
>Oh, I see. I didn't know this. What usage information was
>added to the definition of <SIS> (v) "rain" by Okrand's act?
>Was it that <SIS> didn't take a subject?
Exactly. Many people on the list argued passionately that Klingon verbs do
not take an indefinite, nonspecific subject like English verbs do; i.e. the
"it" in statements like "it's raining" or "it's cold". The insisted that
you need a subject noun: e.g. {chal}, {muD}, {'engmey}, etc. We went
around and around about this until May 1998 when DloraH and Okrand got to
talking about the weather at a Trek convention:
In a way everyone was correct with this one. It rained a few times
during the weekend, so we were put into the situation to discuss it.
{SIS. SISqu'. SIStaH. SISchoH.} All correct. {SISlu'}, although
grammatically correct, he didn't particularly like... You can also
give it an object and say things like the clouds rained down cats
and dogs... or something like that; you get the idea. But when Marc
and I went outside and drops of water were falling on us, he looked
up and simply said '{SIS}'.
Presumable other weather verbs (e.g. {peD} "snow") work the same way.
>If <Dajatlhbogh vIyajbe'> is considered canon, how can this be
>reconciled with what we know about <-bogh>?
Well, the usual ways Okrand has handled similar contradictions in the
past. He might say that the dropping of {mu'} in {Dajatlhbogh [mu']
vIyajbe'} is colloquial or un-educated usage; or it's standard Klingon,
but very uncommon; or it's either old-fashioned or OTOH a youthful
error; or it's a regional usage; or it's the brief, efficient brusque way
computers speak; or it's technical jargon (i.e. the programmer's
computerese); etc.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons