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

Will Martin willmartin2 at mac.com
Fri Oct 25 06:55:46 PDT 2019

{qabpaq} is a proper name, not a word per se. We do have proper names in our canon dictionaries, but keep in mind that proper names have context, and {qabpaq} is the proper name of a corporation and a Web site on Earth in the 21st century. Most likely, it is meaningless on Qo’noS in the distant future, where the Klingons of Star Trek is set. We’ve never seen Worf pulling out his tricorder to post an image of his breakfast for all his friends and family.

So, if you are writing in Klingon in a context where people know what FaceBook is, it’s fine to use {qabpaq}. If you are writing fan fiction in the Star Trek Universe, it’s probably presumptive, perhaps useful as humor, but not really something you can expect ViaCom to ever feature as a script for a future movie.

Meanwhile, on the topic of new words, I’d like to express my deep appreciation for the extreme convenience of being able to update the word list in boQwI’ with a couple of screen taps, without having to manually make the entry, note the source, decide the arbitrary wording of the gloss if the one given doesn’t fit the format of the rest of the dictionary, [and in the old days, make sure to make consistent entries on the K>E and E>K sides].

I have put so much work into maintenance of the dictionaries migrated to half a dozen or so different platforms over the years, from the original WordStar file on my Commodore 128, printed on a dot matrix printer, through Palm and HandSpring databases, MS Access in Windows, Bento, and TapForms in MacOS and iOS, I feel absolutely lazy being able to just update the database in boQwI'.

For all the work that goes into this great resource for us all, thank you, thank you, thank you. 

batlh bIvangtaHmo' qanaD.

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.

> On Oct 25, 2019, at 9:20 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> David Holt:
> > I wouldn't count that as canon.  Is Dr. 
> > Okrand never allowed to just have a  
> > casual conversation without being careful  
> > that he is also making an offical canon  
> > pronouncement?  So Dr. Okrand  
> > occaionally uses mu'mey ru' and mu'mey  
> > ghoQ.  That doesn't make those words  
> > canon, it shows us that it's OK to use  
> > mu'mey ru' and mu'mey ghoQ.  Feel free  
> > to use them.  But don't expect them to  
> > appear in official dictionaries.
> I don't agree with this argument.
> If we accept it, then who will be the one deciding, "when okrand is speaking casually, and when he's officially creating canon" ?
> Perhaps, the need never appeared again for okrand to use {qabpaq}. So, how could someone dismiss it, as being "a one-time temporary word only" ?
> Personally, I'd expect every new word spoken by okrand to appear in official dictionaries, (if there were ever any), but with a note informing the reader, when it was said/heard/written etc.
> If not for any other reason, then at least for the purpose to inform someone who sees it being used by someone, to know why that person is using it to start with.
> ~ 
> bara'qa'
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org>
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20191025/4aeed2e2/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list