<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/15/2019 3:00 PM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:094C3DB4-AB00-4824-B675-6AB4F4988727@mac.com">
<div class="">It’s ironic, in that it’s a cultural explanation for
how to use certain words, and you often and vociferously have
objected to the idea that we should look at the language through
the filter of “What would a Klingon say?”…</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">But it is based on canon, so it’s clearly valid.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Precisely. I'm (a) admitting that it's very speculative and (b)
basing it on a canonical description of a speculative cultural
influence on Klingon grammar. I do not object to cultural
explanations, only to using non-canonical cultural explanations to
decide grammatical matters.</p>
<p>We have lots of cultural explanations guiding us. <i>Power
Klingon </i>tells us all about the reasons why the only
greeting is <b>nuqneH</b> and why you use replacement and secrecy
proverbs. <i>Klingon for the Galactic Traveler</i> tells us when
it's appropriate to use slang and which cohorts pronounce things
certain ways and why the various idioms mean what they mean. We're
told about cultural taboos against using certain words and
suffixes. These things all have their bases in Okrandian canon.
But when someone says something like "Klingons don't like to
humble themselves, so there is no way to apologize in Klingon,"
they're just making stuff up, and it's as inoperative as someone
else saying the Klingon word for <i>hard drive</i> is <b>letSeD.</b></p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>