[tlhIngan Hol] Is Star Trek: Discovery a new canon category?

mayqel qunenoS mihkoun at gmail.com
Fri Aug 11 08:06:16 PDT 2017

I see your point.

However, boQwI' is meant to be a helping tool, in order to learn okrandian
klingon, not a star trek klingon guide.

Anyway, the final decision is of course De'vID's..

qunnoq jan puqloD

On 11 Aug 2017 5:55 pm, "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:04 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> lieven:
>> > Theoretically, if ALL that Qov has translated is just fine,
>> > following the grammar, with no confusion - then why should
>> > we not show it?
>> In that case I want to ask, to include in boQwI' every other sentence
>> every other grammarian has ever written.
> boQwI' contains a number of entries which aren't Okrand canon (and they
> are marked as not being by Okrand). There's the {taH pagh taHbe'} speech
> from Hamlet, the "Blood was ankle deep" drinking song from DS9 (whose
> lyrics are described as "not grammatical in modern standard Klingon, since
> they are ancient"), a few words used in novels and the like (marked as
> "extended canon: use with caution!"), and so on.
> My guess is that the intent is to include non-canonical words or passages
> that beginners may nonetheless have already heard of in some context other
> than KLI-approved Klingon, so they can find information about them
> (including their non-canonical status) when they come to look them up. In
> this case, beginners coming to boQwI' from DSC might look up lines from the
> show, and if those beginners find entries saying "this is a line from DSC,
> it's probably okay but it's not by Okrand" that will probably be more
> useful to them than finding no results at all and wondering why.
> The majority of people who use boQwI' aren't die-hard Klingon fans like
> us. (I was surprised when I first read that from De'vID. I hadn't really
> anticipated the possibly that someone could be interested in Klingon
> without going all-in.) It's quite likely that they aren't going to know
> about the canon/non-canon distinction beforehand unless they are told.
> Speaking for myself, I trust SuStel and lojmIt tI'wI' nuv more than Qov.
>> So, why include her sentences and exclude theirs, or yours ? You're a
>> grammarian, right ? Why should I study Qov's sentences, and not yours ?
> Lots of people are going to be interested in Qov's sentences, because they
> are going to be broadcast to potentially hundreds of thousands of people,
> who have been told that it's all legitimate Klingon by the producers of
> DSC.
> Conversely, almost nobody outside the mailing list is going to be
> interested in the things SuStel or lojmIt or you or me or even Qov have
> said here unless they're reading the mailing list archives. No aspiring
> Klingonist is going to come across (for example) my recent translation of
> "The Second Coming" on the Internet somewhere and then hit up boQwI'
> looking for more details. Including Qov's sentences in boQwI' would at
> least provide an opportunity to get out in front of the issue, and help
> beginners understand that these sentences aren't canonical.
> (And, to reiterate... has anybody asked Okrand for his thoughts on the
> matter?)
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170811/eace1e99/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list