tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 18 09:59:57 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC?: De'wI' mughghachmey [sic]
- From: "d'Armond Speers" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC?: De'wI' mughghachmey [sic]
- Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 13:00:33 -0400
- Encoding: 41 TEXT
> >Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 17:49:57 -0400
> >From: "d'Armond Speers" <[email protected]>
>
> >Of course, /ghItlhwI'/ means "thing which prints" as much as it means
"one
> >who prints." For clarity, my first impulse would have been /ghItlhbogh
> >jan/, but I like the terseness of /ghItlhwI'/. Sort of parallels
/So'wI'/:
> >do you think of the officer whose job it is to through the cloaking
device
> >switch, or the cloaking device itself?
>
> <cloaking device> Hechba' <So'wI'>- wa' Doch 'oSchu'.
ghobe', jIQoch. Okay, think of /baHwI'/. Is it the officer whose job it
is to fire the weapon, or the weapon? We have /baHwI'/ referring to a
person, and /So'wI'/ referring to the device. Either could be interpreted
in both ways, we just have accepted interpretations of them from TKD. So,
/ghItlhwI'/ is ambiguous; so what?
> SoHvaD mu'vam Dalo'DI', wIv QaQ <ghItlhwI'>.
What? "/ghItlhwI'/ goods a choice"? Unless you take /QaQ/ to be
transitive, you're missing a verb.
> 'ach
> latlh nuv DajatlhDI', mu' pIm Dalo'chugh Duyajchu'.
The beautiful thing about language, is that there's always another way.
But I really don't see the confusion you do here. There's a lot to be
said for context, too; you're looking at the desktop, at a picture of a
printer, labelled /ghItlhwI'/. Your personal tendencies at reading /-wI'/
aside, I think it's pretty clear. Right next to /veQ ngaSwI'/, /De'wI'/,
and /QumwI'/, which I also think are very clear.
Hey, why are we arguing, anyway? It's my desktop! :)
> -- valwI'
--Holtej