tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 30 09:12:35 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} *Othello* vIleghta'.
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} *Othello* vIleghta'.
- Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 09:12:35 -0400
>Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 18:33:39 -0700
>From: [email protected] (DaQtIq)
>(It wasn't easy to write about a play without constructing
>many hindsight words. How would you describe a performance
>by actors? Are actors *DawI'pu'*? Is *lut* satisfactory for
>play?)
We had this problem in Hamlet. As you recall, a troupe of actors plays an
important role (er, I mean aside from the way actors usually play roles) in
the plot. Yes, we used "DawI'pu'" for actors, and I think "lut" for play.
We also had something of an argument as to whether or not actors can be
said to be "DawI'"; are they "acting like" or "acting out"? I personally
was (and am) in favor of "DawI'" for "actor." An actor is a professional
"behaver"; one who is involved in behaving in various ways, generally like
someone else to depict a character. The argument went on for a while :)
But we settled on DawI' for actor, yes.
~mark