[Tlhingan-hol] paq'batlh: TO SPEAK TO SOMEONE OF SOMETHING

[De'vID jonpIn]

lojmIt tI'wI'nuv
>
> We get large volumes of new canon full of mistakes and hints at new
> grammatical constructions without any official analysis or descriptions of
> grammatical constructions not given to us in TKD or the appendix or
> anywhere else. So, when we get new vocabulary, how do we know it's not
> misspelled? When we get new grammar, how do we know it doesn't have
> editorial errors?
>

Most of the mistakes are just obvious typos.  I read through the whole
thing in Klingon without having to think very hard about the grammar, and I
didn't notice anything that absolutely required grammar that I didn't
already know or guess.  I'm not that skilled, but the {paq'batlh} was a
relatively easy read -- compared to, say, the Shakespearean plays.  (The
only really difficult sentence is that ugly {quv HIja'chuqQo'} business
already pointed out, and even then I could sort of justify it to myself.
 {ngIq} is also new/interesting, but was already previously analysed on the
mailing list.)

The new vocabulary that I learned at the {qepHom} didn't come from the
{paq'batlh}, but rather from word-of-mouth of words learned at previous
{qep'a'mey}.  (I'd already seen the TalkNow! stuff earlier.)  This lack of
reliable transmission isn't MO's fault, but rather a consequence of the
fact that the KLI web site no longer has a maintainer to update a single
unified "official" new words list.  Quvar has just volunteered to maintain
an addendum to that list.  A couple of other people also maintain their own
new words lists, some of which are online.

As ghunchu'wI' said, it's not quite that bad.  Sure, we are getting some
canonical errors, but we've always had some canonical errors (some of which
we later find out are examples of previously unknown grammar).

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20111129/05125716/attachment.html>