<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 10:43 AM, Lieven L.
Litaer wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:634a37b0-1b2b-0980-6e80-bfb5b852bd76@gmx.de">it is true
that we are the people who invented the term of canon and
<br>
definied that it's all spoken or written by Okrand. Marc Okrand
<br>
sometimes makes a small mistake while speaking Klingon, and thn
<br>
immediately says "oh no, that's not a word". But if somebody asks
"What
<br>
is the word for X?" and he answers with an entire email explaining
the
<br>
word, it can definitely be seen as a canon word, such as happened
with
<br>
the word {wI'qIy}. Saying that this word should not be in the list
<br>
because it's a borrowed word, would eliminate many others, like
the
<br>
country names, food names and several animals.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Voragh has reposted the note. Okrand didn't send an entire email
explaining the word; he sent a paragraph describing how Klingon
doesn't have its own word for <i>wiki,</i> but transliterates the
word we're familiar with. (He's probably playing off the idea that
<i>wiki</i> isn't an English word either, but a transliteration of
a Hawaiian word, but in English it has become a word of computer
jargon.)</p>
<p>I haven't opined on whether <b>wI'qIy</b> or <b>qabpaq</b>
should be on the new words list, but I did point out already that
all of our word lists, including Okrand's own, are inconsistent in
the treatment of proper nouns. Excluding <b>wI'qIy</b> or <b>qabpaq</b>
doesn't necessarily force the exclusion of, say, <b>'epIl naH</b>
or <b>DoyIchlan.</b></p>
<p>The problem lies in the question of what the purpose of these
lists is. Is it to catalog every canonical word? Then all lists
are woefully inadequate. Where is the name <b>Qugh</b> on any of
these lists? Why do the names <b>torgh</b> and <b>matlh </b>appear
on the KLI list but not <b>Qugh</b> or <b>vIqSIS</b><b>?</b> Or
is the point of the list to provide a list of actual Klingon
words? Then none of these names belong.</p>
<p>Neither the KLI nor Okrand has ever been particularly careful
about defining what should go in a list. This is something
dictionary compilers have to deal with all the time. Sure, a word
is known in the general population, but does everyone consider it
a lexicalizable word or just a transitory one? Is it something
formally recognized by grammarians or just something that pops up
now and then? Language is messy and doesn't lend itself to easy
categories.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:634a37b0-1b2b-0980-6e80-bfb5b852bd76@gmx.de">
Talking about {qabpaq}, we may sure argue if that word makes sense
<br>
because this was only a personal message to somebody, but still,
MO did
<br>
use the word. In addition, this is not really a new words, it's a
<br>
compound noun that we should use.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>There's yer problem right there. "Should use." Okrand did not
prescribe the use of <b>wI'qIy</b><b>;</b> he said it's just a
Klingon pronunciation of a Federation thing that Klingons use from
time to time. Okrand is describing, not prescribing.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:634a37b0-1b2b-0980-6e80-bfb5b852bd76@gmx.de">
If Okrand uses a word, and even writes it down, it surely is
canon.
<br>
That's what we decided many years agom.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, but "canon" does not mean "should use." He gave us a very
specific and emphatic warning that <b>wI'qIy</b> is <i>not</i> a
Klingon word, but a Klingon pronunciation of an English word.</p>
<p>Again, I have not opined on whether these words <i>should</i> be
included in the word list; I am only interested in more clearly
defining the issue.<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>