<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none"><!--P{margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;background-color:#FFFFFF;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<p>> <span style="background-color:white;">What you do is count up exceptional circumstances. If a given piece of canon (1) is a toast,<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;">> which uses special grammar, and (2) violates a clear rule, that's two reasons to be uncertain<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;">> about the correctness of that canon. The more reasons to doubt the grammar of an utterance,<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;">> the less certain you can be of the explanation of that sentence.<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;">I agree with this, although I do think canonical counter-examples are still relevant to the discussion.<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;">I also don't don't really think that reason (1) holds up, considering {wo' DevtaHjaj ghawran} is explicitly stated not to be a toast, in contrast with {wo' ghawran DevtaHjaj}.<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;">It's also worth noting that paq'batlh contains two similar sentences (one of which is repeated three times). I'm generally very suspicious towards paq'batlh, in part because it is meant to be an old and poetic text,
but mostly because we know it contains a lot of oddities.<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;">The sentences are listed here: </span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;"><a href="http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/PaqbatlhNewRules#A_2._Verb_45suffix_7_43_jaj">http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/PaqbatlhNewRules#A_2._Verb_45suffix_7_43_jaj</a><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;">> But we're not talking about Okrandian canon here; we're talking about stuff Qov wrote.<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;">It seems to me the discussion is about the sentence {tlhIngan maH. taHjaj.} and how many have interpreted it as *tlhIngan maHtaHjaj.*. In the course of this discussion, the grammaticality of *maHtaHjaj* came up.<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;">Also, considering Qov's command of the language, whether or not a sentence is grammatical can be seen as a hint as to whether or not she would have written it (although I think the other evidence we have is quite sufficient
on its own).<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;">A further piece of evidence that I don't believe has been mentioned here is that Kenneth Mitchell (Kol) spelled it that way in a tweet, so that's another one of Qov's disciples.<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;"><a href="https://twitter.com/MrKenMitchell/status/858031343862767617">https://twitter.com/MrKenMitchell/status/858031343862767617</a><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;">> But if you always do that, they're not really
<strong>mu'mey ru'.</strong> You're taking the exceptions to the<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;">> language and applying them generally, while telling yourself that you're not really doing that.<br>
<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;">I don't really think that's true, unless it catches on in a big way and starts being considered "correct" to some extent, or was treated as an ordinary expression. It seems to match the definition of {mu'mey ru'}:<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color:white;"></span>"Sometimes words or phrases are coined for a specific occasion, intentionally violating grammatical rules in order to have an impact. Usually these are never heard again, though some gain currency and might as
well be classified as slang. Klingon grammarians call such forms {mu'mey ru'} ("temporary words")."</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I'll confess that when I first used this construction, I didn't realize that it was ungrammatical, so that was just a {Qaghna'}. Now I know, however, and intend to go on using it :)
<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div style="color: rgb(33, 33, 33);">
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000" face="Calibri, sans-serif"><b>From:</b> tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 27, 2017 17:10<br>
<b>To:</b> tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Marc Okrand talking about DSC (spoilerfree)</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/27/2017 9:25 AM, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color:#000000">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color:#000000">
<pre>It's worth noting that so do «wo' DevtaHjaj ghawran» and «wo' ghawran
DevtaHjaj», which are used in KGT to illustrate toast grammar.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>As you say, these are exceptions used in toasts, so that doesn't count.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>I don't believe the first example is meant to be an exception; according to KGT:
"If uttered as a wish, hope, or aspiration - but not as a toast - the normal word order applies: {wo' DevtaHjaj ghawran} ("May Gowron continue to lead the empire")."
It might still be an error, though.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>What you do is count up exceptional circumstances. If a given piece of canon (1) is a toast, which uses special grammar, and (2) violates a clear rule, that's two reasons to be uncertain about the correctness of that canon. The more reasons to doubt the
grammar of an utterance, the less certain you can be of the explanation of that sentence.<br>
</p>
<p>But we're not talking about Okrandian canon here; we're talking about stuff Qov wrote. Whether it's filmed or not, it has no more authority than Worf belching out
<i>ka'blah'blah'cha,</i> until Okrand says Maltz has an opinion on it. Naturally, Okrand would look at anything Qov wrote and say, "Oh, sure, that's because..." and give us an explanation. But until he does that, it's not canonical Klingon.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Personally, I like to use phrases such as {X-ta'jaj X-taHbogh Hoch.} to wish people success. I'm fine with those being {mu'mey ru'}, though.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>But if you always do that, they're not really <b>mu'mey ru'.</b> You're taking the exceptions to the language and applying them generally, while telling yourself that you're not really doing that.<br>
</p>
<p>It would be kind of like constantly telling people, <i>May you are happy</i> or
<i>May you are successful.</i> People would get you the first time they heard it, and figured you just flubbed the sentence in the moment, but if you kept saying that, they'd start to look at you funny. Someone would ask, "Why do you say
<i>are </i>instead of <i>be</i>?" Now, violating the Klingon rule gives you a more versatile sentence than violating my English examples, and that's why you'd do it, but the effect on the listener would be similar.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>