[tlhIngan Hol] paq'batlh errata?

Lieven L. Litaer levinius at gmx.de
Mon Jul 1 02:09:26 PDT 2019

Am 01.07.2019 um 09:33 schrieb De'vID:
> If no one has anything to add, or suggestions about revising the {petaQ}
> footnote or opinions about what,

My opinion is that the note about the prefix pe- and so on should be
removed, as it's misleading and not canon (iirc). But perhabs we should
stay in the game, and give a half solution something likje "rumors say
that this word is related to pe+taQ, but that is not confirmed." In that
form it's at least clear that that's not a set fact.

> if anything, should be done about the
> apparent slang use of {QaD},

I see no need here. Why not use slang? But that's just my opinion.

Lieven L. Litaer
aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany"

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list