[90957] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] paq'batlh: NEW USES OF KNOWN WORDS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Agnieszka Solska)
Sun Nov 27 13:09:42 2011
From: Agnieszka Solska <agnpau1@hotmail.com>
To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list <tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 18:09:25 +0000
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
> {ghal} ? n. envoy (p. 40)
De'vID:
=A0
>I asked MO about this at the qepHom'a'.=A0 He said that he didn't remember
>supplying the Dramatis Personae (so it might have been compiled by someone
>else after the main text was finished), but he took responsibility for not
>catching the error during final proofreading.=A0 (So if someone is worried
>that {ghal} might be canonised as a noun meaning "envoy", you can relax; MO
>has said it's an error.)
>
>Something else that may be of interest is that MO mentioned that he didn't
>write some of the footnotes.=A0 He was flipping through the book when he
>stopped at a page and pointed at a footnote and said something along the
>lines of he hadn't seen that before or didn't remember seeing it before.=
=A0 I
>believe it was the explanation of {petaQ} on p. 70, but I'm not completely
>sure since I was looking at the book upside-down (or, um, at a negative
>angle).=A0 He then said that some of the non-Klingon parts of the text were
>not written by him, or were changed from his draft.=A0 If someone else who
>was present saw what he was pointing at or heard more clearly what he said
>about it, please share.=A0 But the gist of it was that outside of the main
>body of the text, we can't assume that everything was written by MO.
wejpuH. So how do we tell what's canon and what's not...
'ISqu' =
=
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
