[Tlhingan-hol] nuqDaq ghaH 'arHa'e'?

[De'vID]

qunnoQ HoD:
> I came to realize that all knowledge concerning tlhIngan Hol,can be
> categorized in two groups :
>
> Canon Klingon
> Non Canon Klingon
>
> And these two categories,could be further described as such :
>
> Canon Klingon : Purity
> Non Canon Klingon : Crap

It's a good idea to keep as strictly to canon as possible, but reality
isn't so clear cut and there are a few grey areas.

For example, Marc Okrand has written some Klingon which isn't
considered canon. He often accompanies his signature with a phrase in
Klingon when signing a book. Those phrases aren't considered canon.
Actually, he's made a mistake at least once when writing these phrases
(which he himself recognised was a mistake). He's also spoken a number
of phrases which he's used as examples when explaining a concept, but
they're not considered canon since they're not written down or
printed.

There are also some conventions which have developed among Klingon
speakers which aren't strictly canon. For example, almost everyone
accepts that {mIS} can mean mentally confused or perplexed, though its
definition is "be confused, mixed up". I interpret it only in the
literal sense of things being mixed up or confused for one another,
though what I think of as an English idiomatic meaning has seeped so
thoroughly into the Klingon that I don't normally bother pointing this
out when someone else uses it in that sense.

There was a discussion about this on the mailing list earlier:
http://www.kli.org/activities/email-discussion-group/?tlhy=2013&tlhm=October&tlhp=msg00095.html

qunnoQ HoD:
> So,I finally decided that :
>
> a. study comes first
> b. application of knowledge gained,always within the strict boundaries of
> canon follows
> c. if questions remain ---> research,research,research !
> d. if questions still remain unanswered,then and *only* then post in KLBC
>
> Of course all these are just my conclusions,and yes I may be wrong ; I just
> wanted to share my thoughts !

I would suggest that if you had questions, go ahead and post them to
KLBC whatever the outcome of your research. The canon is rather
scattered, and there are people here who are so much more familiar
with the canon than you are that they can easily point out things that
you've missed, even if you think you've been thorough.

qunnoQ HoD:
> Qov lojmIt tI' wI' nuv je, veqlargh bochenmoHpu' !
> (I didn't find a word for <<monster>> so I chose {veqlargh})

When Klingons make a mistake, they sometimes (as a social convention)
blame {veqlargh}. There's an expression, {HIvqa' veqlargh} "The
Fek'lhr strikes again!", which Klingons will sometimes say when, e.g.,
dropping their food by accident. So "creating a Fek'lhr" is perhaps
not the best metaphor to use to describe teaching someone well.

-- 
De'vID