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

[De'vID]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 15:21, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> 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!
>
That's obviously not what Okrand means. He even wrote a section in KGT on
intentional ungrammaticality.

> 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.
>
Is this supposed to mean something? If it was intended as an actual example
of someone breaking the rules of Klingon but in a way which is easy for
someone else to decipher, I'm afraid I don't know what the English
translation of that sentence is supposed to be.

A much better example is {SoS jIH batlh SoH}, which was actually used on
the TNG episode "The Bonding", and obviously contrary to how Okrand
recommends to approach Klingon grammar despite being very easy to
reconstruct the intended meaning.

> (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.)
>

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190405/8f3ac679/attachment.htm>