[90985] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] paq'batlh: NEW USES OF KNOWN WORDS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI' 'utlh)
Mon Nov 28 13:22:32 2011
In-Reply-To: <COL124-W24D3AB6B3418DA362757EDF2CD0@phx.gbl>
From: "ghunchu'wI' 'utlh" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:21:54 -0500
To: tlhIngan Hol email discussion forum <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
2011/11/27 Agnieszka Solska <agnpau1@hotmail.com>:
> wejpuH. So how do we tell what's canon and what's not...
It's all canon. However, some of it is canonical *error*. This has
always been the case, with several types of error in evidence, some
all the way back to the original publication of TKD.
- typographic error: {-egh} instead of {-'egh}; {qIbHes} instead of
{qIbHeH} (accepted as having been intended to be {qIbHeS})
- simple auctorial mistake: {lujpu' jIH} instead of {jIlujpu'}; {Hagh}
instead of {HaD}
- apparently intentional goof: {bachHa'} labeled as (n) instead of (v)
I apologize for being {'eDjen} here, but I'm confident I have a
quicker and more complete internalization of Klingon grammar than does
Marc Okrand. I have no problem identifying certain canonical examples
as being sufficiently divergent from what we already know and
dismissing them as mistakes. I won't go so far as to force that
understanding on others, but I'll readily share it.
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
