On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 at 03:11, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
{Hoch tuqmey / Hoch puq poHmey / Hoch loDpu' be'pu' je / HarghmeH yeq chaH / molor HI''a' luSuv / lughIjlu'be' 'ej pujHa' 'e' lu'aghmeH Suv} "All tribes, / All ages, / All sexes, / United to do battle together! / Against the tyrant Molor! / Against fear and against weakness!"
Clarification: {puj} is still a valid noun. {puj} being a noun was not an error. Someone noticed the fact that the original verse in the 1st edition was our only source of the noun {puj} "weakness". The lines were revised because Dr. Okrand was dissatisfied with the interpretation the Klingon translation imposed on the English, which could be interpreted in other ways. A discussion with the editors clarified that the intended meaning of "battling against fear and weakness" is "battling to demonstrate that they’re not fearful and weak", and the Klingon version was revised accordingly. The removal of the only example of {puj} as a noun was incidental. I guess when the paq'batlh 2ed comes out, there'll be a bunch of questions about whether lines which were revised means that the original lines in the 1st edition were errors. I think, for the most part, it should be obvious. There might be some grousing about the canonicity of 1st edition lines which were removed or revised, as I suppose the revision means their official removal from canon. (Or I guess they have the status of "canonically revised/removed", and when they are cited it should be along with the revision. Some were very clearly "canonical errors".) Some of these lines may have been our only examples of certain constructions or word usages, but I think it should be clear whether the lines were revised because they broke grammatical rules or contained errors, or whether (as in the case of {puj}) the edit was incidental to the noun/verb in consideration. -- De'vID