[tlhIngan Hol] pseudo-Klingon words from the paq'batlh

De'vID de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com
Mon Jul 1 04:37:03 PDT 2019

What do people think about the following Klingon "words" from paq'batlh?
They don't appear in the main (Klingon-language) text, but are used in
otherwise English sentences in the introduction or footnotes.

xxii. {Huy'reH} "aria style"
xxii, 62, 87. {cha'ang} "chorus style"
xvii, xxii, xxxv. {Qich'lut} "narrator style"
xix. {paq'jachchu} "Book of the Perfect Scream"

{Huy'reH} and {cha'ang}, at least, seem to follow proper modern {tlhIngan
Hol} phonology.

{Qich'lut} has a lower-cased "i" and an out-of-place {qaghwI'}.

{paq'jachchu} has that apostrophe after {paq} and a missing {qaghwI'} at
the end (if the {jachchu} part is indeed the verb {jachchu'}, as the
English translation seems to indicate). On p.xxx, it is explicitly stated
that the name {paq'batlh} is in {no' Hol} and that the apostrophe may be a
clue to some missing grammatical element. Of course, the book also has
sections named {paq'yav}, {paq'raD}, and {paq'QIH}. So {paq'jachchu} is
probably just spelled weirdly for the same reason.

Should {Huy'reH} and {cha'ang} be accepted as canon Klingon words as-is? In
other words, would you expect them in a new words list? (In particular, I
am asking if they should be listed in {boQwI'}.)

The word {Qich'lut} is spelled that way all three times it appears in the
book. I notice that in previous discussions on this mailing list, 'IQqu'
and Voragh have both spelled it as {QIch lut} (capital-I, no apostrophe,
space between the two words). Should {QIch lut} be accepted as the "modern"
spelling for the purpose of look-up in word lists?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190701/301cad0e/attachment-0003.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list