[91029] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] paq'batlh: TO SPEAK TO SOMEONE OF SOMETHING
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID jonpIn)
Tue Nov 29 05:06:23 2011
In-Reply-To: <FAD05406-A2EF-4105-8A0E-14DD92B0445F@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 11:06:07 +0100
From: "De'vID jonpIn" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
To: KLI <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
--===============4401480823183684798==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3010e3c591651204b2dcc48d
--20cf3010e3c591651204b2dcc48d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
>
> We get large volumes of new canon full of mistakes and hints at new
> grammatical constructions without any official analysis or descriptions of
> grammatical constructions not given to us in TKD or the appendix or
> anywhere else. So, when we get new vocabulary, how do we know it's not
> misspelled? When we get new grammar, how do we know it doesn't have
> editorial errors?
>
Most of the mistakes are just obvious typos. I read through the whole
thing in Klingon without having to think very hard about the grammar, and I
didn't notice anything that absolutely required grammar that I didn't
already know or guess. I'm not that skilled, but the {paq'batlh} was a
relatively easy read -- compared to, say, the Shakespearean plays. (The
only really difficult sentence is that ugly {quv HIja'chuqQo'} business
already pointed out, and even then I could sort of justify it to myself.
{ngIq} is also new/interesting, but was already previously analysed on the
mailing list.)
The new vocabulary that I learned at the {qepHom} didn't come from the
{paq'batlh}, but rather from word-of-mouth of words learned at previous
{qep'a'mey}. (I'd already seen the TalkNow! stuff earlier.) This lack of
reliable transmission isn't MO's fault, but rather a consequence of the
fact that the KLI web site no longer has a maintainer to update a single
unified "official" new words list. Quvar has just volunteered to maintain
an addendum to that list. A couple of other people also maintain their own
new words lists, some of which are online.
As ghunchu'wI' said, it's not quite that bad. Sure, we are getting some
canonical errors, but we've always had some canonical errors (some of which
we later find out are examples of previously unknown grammar).
--
De'vID
--20cf3010e3c591651204b2dcc48d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">lojmIt tI'wI'nuv<blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-lef=
t:1ex;"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word"><div>We get large volumes of ne=
w canon full of mistakes and hints at new grammatical constructions without=
any official analysis or descriptions of grammatical constructions not giv=
en to us in TKD or the appendix or anywhere else. So, when we get new vocab=
ulary, how do we know it's not misspelled? When we get new grammar, how=
do we know it doesn't have editorial errors?</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Most of the mistakes are just obviou=
s typos. =A0I read through the whole thing in Klingon without having to thi=
nk very hard about the grammar, and I didn't notice anything that absol=
utely required grammar that I didn't already know or guess. =A0I'm =
not that skilled, but the {paq'batlh} was a relatively easy read -- com=
pared to, say, the Shakespearean plays. =A0(The only really difficult sente=
nce is that ugly {quv HIja'chuqQo'} business already pointed out, a=
nd even then I could sort of justify it to myself. =A0{ngIq} is also new/in=
teresting, but was already previously analysed on the mailing list.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>The new vocabulary that I learned at the {qepHom} didn&=
#39;t come from the {paq'batlh}, but rather from word-of-mouth of words=
learned at previous {qep'a'mey}. =A0(I'd already seen the Talk=
Now! stuff earlier.) =A0This lack of reliable transmission isn't MO'=
;s fault, but rather a consequence of the fact that the KLI web site no lon=
ger has a maintainer to update a single unified "official" new wo=
rds list. =A0Quvar has just volunteered to maintain an addendum to that lis=
t. =A0A couple of other people also maintain their own new words lists, som=
e of which are online.</div>
<div><br></div><div>As ghunchu'wI' said, it's not quite that ba=
d. =A0Sure, we are getting some canonical errors, but we've always had =
some canonical errors (some of which we later find out are examples of prev=
iously unknown grammar).</div>
<div><br></div></div>-- <br>De'vID<br>
--20cf3010e3c591651204b2dcc48d--
--===============4401480823183684798==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============4401480823183684798==--
