<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 10/25/2019 10:52 AM, Lieven L.
Litaer wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f63b0152-1ff9-fd0b-f713-643cf89cdaa5@gmx.de">But
regarding the word paqbaq, we have many words that are defined as
<br>
"what a Klingon would call the thing when he sees it" so staying
with
<br>
that, we can argue that this is what a Klingon would call
facebook, so I
<br>
would include it in the dictionary, because ... honestly: why not?
</blockquote>
<p>This statement is not absolute, however. "What a Klingon would
call the thing when he sees it" is not the same as "what a Klingon
would necessarily call the thing when he sees it." It implies that
the coinage is so obvious that everyone simply coins it the
obvious way, but someone <i>might</i> call it something
different. <b>qabpaq</b> is one of those obvious coinages. Other
names are not so obvious. How would a Klingon translate <i>Instagram?</i>
Maybe <b>SIbI'De'...</b> or <b>nomnaghbeQ...</b> or <b>DowIy...</b>
If Okrand happened to call it <b>DowIy,</b> and he acknowledges
that it's just "what a Klingon might call the thing," would that
be more worthy of dictionary status than the others? It would be
canonical, but should not necessarily be presented as <i>the</i>
way to translate it, which is what people will think if it's on
the KLI's list.<br>
</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>