[tlhIngan Hol] How "pure" is Ca'NoN ?

[SuStel]

Hooray! It's now perfectly fine to say *bIvoqbe' 'ej muSuj 'e'!* Because 
Okrand said breaking rules is acceptable, and we all KNOW what the 
sentence means!

And now we can say *qatlh ghaH DaHoHpu' 'e' vISov*/I know why you killed 
him,/ because c'mon, we all KNOW what it means.

And OF COURSE we can say *chenmoH Da'oy' jIH,*//because it's completely 
obviously what that means. Anyone who couldn't understand THAT one has 
got to be brain-damaged.

(Or maybe, just maybe, he just means that we should look at Klingon 
samples in their proper contexts, that what he writes shouldn't be 
analyzed as perfect and completely normative text. A Skybox card is just 
a Skybox card, not an Officially Sanctioned Representative of Klingon 
Grammar.)


On 4/3/2019 8:25 AM, Will Martin wrote:
> Awwwwriiiiiight!
>
> So, I can say {tlhIngan Hol’e’ be’nalwI’ vIghojmoH} because, even 
> though it doesn’t follow the formula given us ({be’nalwI’vaD tlhIngan 
> Hol vIghojmoH}), it obviously makes sense to anyone who speaks 
> Klingon, right?
>
> The two objects of {ghojmoH} are the beneficiary and the topic. You 
> can leave either unmarked if there is only one showing, but if both 
> are there, you can’t leave both unmarked. He stylistically prefers to 
> mark the beneficiary, but it should be fine for me to prefer to mark 
> the topic. In fact, it should be okay to say {tlhIngan Hol’e’ 
> be’nalwI’vaD jIghojmoH.}
>
> [Let the fireworks begin.]
>
> charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
>
> rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
>
>
>
>
>> On Apr 2, 2019, at 10:53 AM, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius at gmx.de 
>> <mailto:levinius at gmx.de>> wrote:
>>
>> Am 02.04.2019 um 16:36 schrieb De'vID:
>>> record-keeping and historical purposes, but please don't worship pairs
>>> of Klingon-English sentences like they're holy.
>>
>> THanks for that. It's very interesting, and it confirms something else.
>> While planning the Miniature thing, I talked to Okrand about the
>> dictionary and the grammar. Also here, he repeated that TKD is way from
>> being complete. He added that if he omitted something, it does not mean
>> that it doesn't exist at all. He also repeated that - what he even wrote
>> in his introduction - although it sometimes says "always" or "never",
>> even that should not be takes as holy. It happens very often that a
>> situation occurs which he did not think about. So if speakers find a
>> solution that "somehow" makes sense and is understandable, then they
>> should use it, instead of saying it's not possible to do so, or we don't
>> know how to. Even breaking rules might be acceptable - think of english
>> "ain't not" and so on.
>>
>> The language is alive, and lives from being used. Don't take TKD too
>> strictly as 100% set in stone. It's only a rough introduction, not a
>> final law.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Lieven L. Litaer
>> aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany"
>> http://www.klingonisch.de
>> http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Canon
>> _______________________________________________
>> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
>> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
>> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org


-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190403/3b934ecb/attachment.htm>