tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 05 22:01:43 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
more on vegh
- From: Jeremy Cowan <[email protected]>
- Subject: more on vegh
- Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 23:59:48 -0700
I've been following the discussion on vegh with interest. I was there,
at the pronouncement, and have a few opinions of my own on how vegh can
and can't be used.
Lawrence wrote:
>The intention or purpose of the object one is
>passing through does not strike me as particularly critical.
I agree! ~mark's example of the Romulan phaser hole is great.
Lawrence wrote (and others have expressed similar opinoins):
>A more relevant aspect seems to be that the object is enclosed, as
>someone else has already noted.
I disagree here. I would certainly use {vegh} to describe passing
through an open gate in a short fence.
~mark wrote:
>TO me, this business of focussing on touching matter or not
>touching matter is splitting hairs
I agree. If a tall Klingon bumps his head on the top of the door as he
passes "through", does that mean that you can't use the word {vegh} for
it?
I feel that ~mark's use of the words "opening" and "aperture" are very
appropriate. When one passes through a forest, a field, or space, one
does not pass through a specific opening/aperture, even if one follows a
trail. Even the path between two rows of warriors does not seem to
really be a specific openeing/aperture, just a path between two rows of
warriors.
Now, here's a question for debate. I think that when walking "through"
the halls and chambers of a ship I would expect to hear the tlhIngan
word used for forests etc. What do you think?
janSIy, vajpu' quv qamQel