tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 21 17:21:59 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: paghHu'/paghleS

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: paghHu'/paghleS
• Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 20:21:06 EDT

In a message dated 2004-05-21 4:32:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[email protected] writes:

> True, (paghHu'/paghleS) is not canon and we are not allowed to make stuff 
> up.  
> 
We ARE allowed to make stuff up.  We MUST make stuff up, because not every 
single word or acceptable combination of affixes/words is attested to in canon.  
Novel words are constantly being created and used by users of Klingon.  
Every language, almost by definition, has resources for producing an infinite 
number of non-trivial sentences.  

I agree that only Maltz/Okrand can produce new ROOT words.  But we all create 
new words and sentences.  Otherwise Klingon is not a language, but a mere 
code.

lay'tel SIvten

• Prev by Date: to bed vs. to the bed
• Next by Date: Re: Klingon WOTD: pagh (n)
• Previous by thread: Re: paghHu'/paghleS
• Next by thread: Re: paghHu'/paghleS
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level