On May 21, 2018, at 00:15, Rhona Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com> wrote:

ghItlhpu' Daniel, jatlh:

> but I wasn’t aware that it was actually written in an archaic language.


jang loghaD, jatlh:
> It's really only the first three cantos that are written in no' Hol, but that's still enough to glean
> quite a bit of the shifts which have occurred. 'ISqu' posted a very good summary back when
> the book was first published:

The excellent summary that 'ISqu' posted was focused upon the phonology, and was a follow-up to my summary of no' Hol grammatical features, which Daniel may also find useful or interesting in this context.



This is delightful, thanks for the pointer!

Regarding the {t}/{'} issue, it may or may not be relevant to note also that the term {Heghbat} "ritual suicide" (KGT) seems to have a variant {Heghba'}, from Ann Crispin's novel "Sarek" whose Klingon material was also provided by Marc Okrand.


Thanks for the example. That does seem to offer additional support for the {t}/{‘} variant hypothesis. I also remembered {ghe''or}/{ghe'tor} as another example. And of course, {QI'lop}/{Qetlop}, which could be suggestive of {Qetlop} being a form that falls somewhere in-between a hypothetical {*'qetlup} in ancient Klingon and {QI'lop} in modern Klingon. Which could make sense if Klingons were able to infer {*lup} -> {lop} by context (QI'lopDaq malopba'), but if the origins of QI'lop as a “military holiday” have become obscure over the years and people have forgotten the “true meaning of QI'lop” (QetlopDaq nuq wIlop?), the connection between {*'qet} -> {QI'} might have been more obscure, yielding {Qetlop}

QeS 'utlh
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org