On 11/20/2019 3:01 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
For those who like to read the original wording, I have uploaded the pages from the qepHom booklet into the wiki:
Does nobody understand the importance of searchable text? Not yet mentioned on this list is the information on page 12 that *-ngan* is generally translated as/people of,/ but that it's more generally used to indicate a group of beings, not necessarily beings from a particular place. Thus we have the answer to the old dilemma of whether a Klingon living on Earth could be called a *tera'ngan:* the answer is generally no, because *tera'ngan* is generally understood to refer to humans, but someone wanting to split hairs could legitimately claim that any inhabitant of Earth could be called a *tera'ngan.* Said person should be prepared to fend off an attack of eye-rolling. Also not yet mentioned is that Okrand declined to explain the word *roSHa'moH*/paralyze./ The word remains nigh-unusable because we don't know for sure how to inflect it. // Okrand resists a strict classification of words as nouns and verbs. One might consider *ret* to be two separate words, a noun and a verb, or one might consider it to be a single word that can be used as a noun or as a verb. He doesn't take a stand on a "correct" interpretation. This hearkens back to /The Klingon Dictionary/'s introduction of *-ghach,* where it is said that "it is not known if all verbs can be used as nouns." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name