[Tlhingan-hol] keeping "KLI folklore" words in word lists

[PICHLMANN Christoph]

I'm not sure I see as much potential for confusion, but I do understand your reasoning.

I don't want to drag this out, so I'll leave it at that. Didn't want to just stop replying, though.

maja'chuq. mayajchuq. maQoch. Do'Ha'...

-----Original Message-----
From: Felix Malmenbeck [mailto:felixm at kth.se] 
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 1:51 PM
To: PICHLMANN Christoph; tlhingan-hol at kli.org
Subject: RE: [Tlhingan-hol] keeping "KLI folklore" words in word lists

> But in the end, it's in the app, and a user who wasn't here at the 
> time doesn't know why the app can't find the word.

I get that one would want it in there to make it easier for new learners to parse sentences that include these words, but in the end, I think the use of these words is rare enough that the potential for generating confusion greatly outweighs the potential utility.

________________________________________
From: PICHLMANN Christoph [Christoph.PICHLMANN at agrana.com]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 13:19
To: Felix Malmenbeck; tlhingan-hol at kli.org
Subject: RE: [Tlhingan-hol] keeping "KLI folklore" words in word lists

>Well, De'vID is having an open discussion about it in this forum (and on Facebook, as well), so the process is already quite transparent. I >personally think that's a more appropriate method than putting that discussion in the actual dictionary.

Yes, putting it here and on Facebook is great and for the moment very transparent and interactive.

But in the end, it's in the app, and a user who wasn't here at the time doesn't know why the app can't find the word.


-----Original Message-----
From: Felix Malmenbeck [mailto:felixm at kth.se]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 1:15 PM
To: PICHLMANN Christoph; tlhingan-hol at kli.org
Subject: RE: [Tlhingan-hol] keeping "KLI folklore" words in word lists

> Hence my suggestion of acknowleding that it exists but also declaring it to be wrong.

In the case of slang, I wouldn't say it's necessarily even wrong, as such, but if boQwI''s purpose is to teach canonical Klingon, it is outside of its scope.

So, perhaps a better journal analogy wouldn't be submitting pseudoscience to a peer-reviewed science journal, but rather, it'd be like submitting a creative writing piece; there's nothing *wrong* with it, but rather, it simply doesn't belong there to begin with.

> Hence my suggestion of acknowleding that it exists but also declaring it to be wrong.
> Not sure how that would translate to the journal, though. In that case 
> I'd probably want to see an article explaining WHY the pseudoscientific junk is exactly that.

Well, De'vID is having an open discussion about it in this forum (and on Facebook, as well), so the process is already quite transparent. I personally think that's a more appropriate method than putting that discussion in the actual dictionary.

//loghaD