<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/26/2022 2:00 AM, De'vID wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+7zAmNqQ+zeUMjhUuGJkDELh9DuQPnpF20Vs9i_AGB2GnkRew@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">When the first edition of the paq'batlh came out,
two points would often come up when something from it was cited
as evidence for or against a particular opinion. The first was
that it had questionable "canon" status because it wasn't
"purely" from Dr. Okrand, due to lines having been changed on
the advice of KLI members.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I believe the concern wasn't that it was changed on advice; the
concern was whether Okrand reviewed those changes or just accepted
them. The editorial process wasn't transparent. It has since
become clear that Okrand was paying close attention.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+7zAmNqQ+zeUMjhUuGJkDELh9DuQPnpF20Vs9i_AGB2GnkRew@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr"> The second was that it was poetry (being something
like the text of an opera) and not prose, and it wasn't always
clear whether a grammatical construct or particular phrasing was
standard or poetic.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>That remains a true point, though it's not as black and white as
some make it out sometimes. Poetry isn't completely ungrammatical
and chaotic; it just sometimes uses otherwise ungrammatical or at
least uncommon grammar for the sake of art. It's fine to point to
something in <i>paq'batlh</i> as evidence for a particular
grammatical claim, but if that's the only evidence it should be
accompanied by the caveat that it's poetry and might conceivably
be nonstandard.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+7zAmNqQ+zeUMjhUuGJkDELh9DuQPnpF20Vs9i_AGB2GnkRew@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr"> I think neither has really changed with the 2ed.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I think the thing that has changed is that you've shown us the
process that Okrand is using to revise it, and we can see that he
is considering it very carefully.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+7zAmNqQ+zeUMjhUuGJkDELh9DuQPnpF20Vs9i_AGB2GnkRew@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">I know that the original edition of the paq'batlh
was revised during two qep'a' based on comments from members of
the KLI. I don't know whether the contribution was evenly
distributed or heavily weighted towards one or a few people.
(Maybe someone who took part can comment on this.) But for the
2nd edition, I have definitely had much more input into the
Klingon text than anyone other than Dr. Okrand. Maybe in some
people's minds that makes its "canon" status more questionable.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I, for one, don't. It was never the editor; it was whether Okrand
knowingly accepted the grammatical implications of his text as
edited by someone else. That's not to say I consider him incapable
of overlooking an error or grammatical consequence introduced by
someone else, just that it's as "canonical" as anything else.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+7zAmNqQ+zeUMjhUuGJkDELh9DuQPnpF20Vs9i_AGB2GnkRew@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">If anyone wants him to clarify anything, it would
be really helpful if you do the background research for him
first. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It often happens that someone asking him for a clarification asks
their question in a way that suggests an answer. Presenting the
whole picture as you do is the best approach to get an informed
answer.<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>