[Tlhingan-hol] paq'batlh: NEW USES OF KNOWN WORDS

[Agnieszka Solska]

> {ghal} ? n. envoy (p. 40)

De'vID:
 
>I asked MO about this at the qepHom'a'.  He said that he didn't remember
>supplying the Dramatis Personae (so it might have been compiled by someone
>else after the main text was finished), but he took responsibility for not
>catching the error during final proofreading.  (So if someone is worried
>that {ghal} might be canonised as a noun meaning "envoy", you can relax; MO
>has said it's an error.)
>
>Something else that may be of interest is that MO mentioned that he didn't
>write some of the footnotes.  He was flipping through the book when he
>stopped at a page and pointed at a footnote and said something along the
>lines of he hadn't seen that before or didn't remember seeing it before.  I
>believe it was the explanation of {petaQ} on p. 70, but I'm not completely
>sure since I was looking at the book upside-down (or, um, at a negative
>angle).  He then said that some of the non-Klingon parts of the text were
>not written by him, or were changed from his draft.  If someone else who
>was present saw what he was pointing at or heard more clearly what he said
>about it, please share.  But the gist of it was that outside of the main
>body of the text, we can't assume that everything was written by MO.

wejpuH. So how do we tell what's canon and what's not...

'ISqu'