<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/29/2020 6:47 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cJhfYsz3RUVQuB672TV-R19EQ-XOTE3NH5kYHytHubm-w@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">jIH:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">If we talk on the phone, and I say to you {DaH paq mu'mey vIjatlh},
then according to the newly revealed Ca'Non, the <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>only<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> way this is
understood is, that I'm holding the book reading from the inside.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">lieven:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">You cannot always reverse such info.
It never sai that it ONLY means reading from a book.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I'm afraid this confuses me..
Aren't we supposed to worship without question the words of maltz,
kneeling in cult-like reverence before them, with nothing but the
purest and unflinching loyalty ? Aren't they the holiest of holies,
not to be defied, falsified, or willingly strayed from ?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>No! Certainly not! Question everything. Test everything.</p>
<p>We have a concept of "canon," which is simply the body of
information Okrand has given us about Klingon. It is the only
source of information on Klingon that is considered valid. What is
NOT canon is our interpretation of that body of information. We
must constantly examine our understanding of canon.<br>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cJhfYsz3RUVQuB672TV-R19EQ-XOTE3NH5kYHytHubm-w@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">If we read {Suvchu'pu' SuvwI'}, then wouldn't we be forced to <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>only<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b>
understand that the "warrior fought to the death" ? Or could it mean
too that, "the warrior fought perfectly, but without finally having
dying in combat" ?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>We are told that <b>Suvchu'</b> means <i>fight to the death,</i>
so wherever we see that word we should interpret it that way. (I
disagree with Lieven that <b>Suvchu'</b> means <i>fight to the
death</i> when it refers to what Klingons think but just <i>fight
perfectly</i> when it refers to what Terrans footballers might
think. This is the language of the Klingons, with their cultural
attitudes built in, so when we get a remark like "from the Klingon
point of view," it should be taken as an explanation of why the
phrase means what it means, not as a suggestion to deviate when
dealing with another culture. If Terran footballers were to say <b>Suvchu'</b>
to refer to their games, I imagine any Klingon listening would
interpret this as hyperbole or be thinking, "You keep using that
word. I do not think it means what you think it means.")<br>
</p>
<p>We are not told that the only way to say <i>read aloud</i> is
with the phrase <b>paq mu'mey jatlh,</b> or that the only think <b>paq
mu'mey jatlh</b> means is <i>read aloud.</i> What we are told
is that a good way to translate <i>read aloud (e.g. from a book)</i>
is with <b>paq mu'mey jatlh.</b> Do not take that beyond what it
actually says.<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>