[Tlhingan-hol] Loose Klingon

[Qov]

This hypothesis makes it easier to write loosely 
but harder to write strictly and harder to read. 
It becomes trapdoor code, a one way passage into 
which meaning can be placed but from which it can 
never be retrieved. The more ways a word can be 
used the harder it is to parse a sentence or to 
write a sentence that cannot be incorrectly 
parsed. I've just about had it with qogh alone: I 
can't write qogh now without specifying either 
nach qogh or yopwaH qogh, and I know to do that 
now, but so many other innocent words I string 
together with one meaning and leave people 
thinking I've said something completely different.

o' tlhingan Hol qaparHa'qu' 'a qamuS.

At 20:11 26/11/2011, David Trimboli wrote:
>More and more, the new canon we see appears to 
>break rules. I believe that some of it is purely 
>error, mostly the forgotten rules of no Type 5s 
>on the first noun of a noun-noun, net instead of 
>'e', and Type 7 on the second verb of a 
>sentence-as-object. However, there are some 
>"rules" that I am beginning to question. Verbs 
>as nouns These keep showing up. "It is not known 
>if all verbs can be used as nouns," says the TKD 
>Addendum, and we know that {tlhutlh} can never 
>be a noun, but what if most verbs can indeed be 
>used as nouns—at least, the ones that seem to 
>have obvious meanings as nouns? Variable 
>semantics The semantic roles of subjects and 
>objects in Klingon seem to change all the time. 
>I can {mev}, I can {mev} you, making you you 
>{mev}. Sometimes we're given explicit 
>instructions on how to use a verb, but most of 
>the time we rely on the semantics of the English 
>translation. Suppose Klingon semantics aren't so 
>strict? Suppose you can use any semantic role 
>you like as subject or object, so long as 
>context makes it clear what you mean? {jIDIng} 
>"I spin," {gho vIDIng} "I spin the circle," {gho 
>vIDIngmoH} "I spin the circle." (The difference 
>between the latter two is an explicit indication 
>({-moH}) that the subject is the agent, as 
>opposed to, say, an instrument or a force. 
>Other? There may be other examples of "loose 
>grammar" that I haven't thought of. I'm not sure 
>whether to take these as signs that Okrand can't 
>keep the whole thing in his head and makes LOTS 
>of mistakes, or whether Klingon is supposed to 
>be more "yeah, whatever" than we give it credit 
>for. Remember the rigor their grammarians give 
>to parts of speech... -- SuStel 
>http://www.trimboli.name/ 
>_______________________________________________ 
>Tlhingan-hol mailing list 
>Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org 
>http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol