[tlhIngan Hol] missing words from kli's "new words not in the original lexicon"

[Lieven L. Litaer]

Am 25.10.2019 um 18:03 schrieb SuStel:
> Okrand did not prescribe
> the use of *wI'qIy**;* he said it's just a Klingon pronunciation of a
> Federation thing that Klingons use from time to time. Okrand is
> describing, not prescribing.

Im suggesting that anything from Okrand must be collected and added to
the dictionary, so that everyone has the same source to learn from. Just
imagine sombody writing about a {wIqI}, and somebody else says "Okrand
told us write that {wI'qIy}.

In my opinion, I think it's not okay that somebody "decides" over which
word should be in a wordlist - especially the KLI list, which is for
many people the one and only correct source for tlhIngan Hol words. If
De'vID decides to add non-canon words to his boQwI', I think that's
okay, as its HIS app, and he even adds a note when a word is unclear of
non canon. But when Okrand writes down something, whatever it is, and he
tells us this is the way to write it, I think there's no reason to argue
it should be omitted from any word list, especially not the KLI's list,
which really should be complete.

 > The problem lies in the question of what the purpose of these lists is.

The purpose is to list new words not listed in TKD.

 > inadequate. Where is the name *Qugh* on any of these lists? Why do the
 > names *torgh* and *matlh *appear on the KLI list but not *Qugh* or
 > *vIqSIS**?*

I'm not getting your point. *Qugh* is in TKD, along whith a handful of
names (including *matlh*) that all do not appear in the word list.
*Qugh* appeared again in KGT, accompanied by *vIqSIS*. That's why it's
not on the KLI list, because that only lists words published later. I
don't know why they are on that list, it could just be a simple mistake
or a double entry.

Still I think it's wrong to omit a word. As you said correctly, "Okrand
said it's just a Klingon pronunciation of a Federation thing that
Klingons use from time to time." -- So we should archive that
information instead of throwing it aways just because it's not aKlingon
thing we talk about. This discussion leads back to 'epIl naH, which is
exactly the same, but we do not trow that away, do we?

Briefly - I'm saying that anything from Okrand should be listed in a
dictionary, because otherwise it will lead to the question that started
the discussion: Why is it not in the list of the KLI if it's canon?


--
Lieven L. Litaer
http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Loanword
http://www.klingonwiki.net/Word/WI-KIy