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

[SuStel]

On 10/27/2019 10:41 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
> Am 25.10.2019 um 18:03 schrieb SuStel:
>
>
> > 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.

And Okrand said *wI'qIy* is not a Klingon word.


> > 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.

Right. They appear in the grammatical sketch, so we know they're correct 
and canonical, but for some reason some proper nouns were left out of 
the word list. Why? What logic puts *tera'*/Earth/ in the word list but 
not *Qugh*/Kruge?/ What logic has the KLI put *matlh*/Maltz/ in its new 
words list but not *Qugh?*


> 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?

We should not throw away discussion about whether it's appropriate to 
include it. It is not obvious to me that the KLI's word list performs 
the same function as TKD's word list.


-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20191027/efbfeb63/attachment-0016.htm>