tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 16 14:21:12 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Word Origin Speculation II
On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, Kenneth Traft wrote:
> D'armand Spears
Just for the record, it's spelled /d'Armond Speers/, and pronounced
/Holtej/. ;)
> This brings the total to twelve -- does twelve "reversies" constitute a
> significant observation? qatlhochnIS!
'ej qalughmoHnIS. I accept the conjunctions as intentional. The
others, well...
Okay, let me make something clear. I don't deny that some may find these
as useful tools for remembering vocabulary. What I objected to in the
first place was the claim that these types of things were intentionally
contrived by Okrand. (I tried to make this clear in a follow-up message
entitled /jIHub'egh/, which you apparently didn't read).
> Another category which d'armand Spears [sic] appears to be unaware of is
> those words which use q a Q as semantically related phonemes. (I say
> this because of his rejection of the pair puq/Qup (child, young)
I objected to the claim that these were reverse spellings. They're
clearly not. You seem to be unaware of the difference between the two
phonemes /q/ and /Q/. (This is an obviously ridiculous claim; I just want
to show how mean-spirited your above remark sounds. I don't appreciate
the intentionally misleading comments.)
All the /q,Q/ examples you give now are two words who vary the phoneme.
The original list was words which were reversed. They're two different
processes; you even listed them separately in your list of observations.
If you say that you're noticing a trend for words that are reversing the
letters, then /puq/ and /Qup/ don't fit the pattern. They're not
reversed.
> There are other examples, but you would surely see them as stretches.
> rarchuqbogh mu'mey boghovlaHchugh, mu'tay'lIj boghurmeH ngeDqu'.
See, this is a completely different claim than this thread was started
with. I don't disagree that it may help some people learn the language.
If it helps you to remember that /ro/ means "torso" because Ro Laren is
thin, then fine; I'm not going to claim that that's what Okrand was thinking.
> G.F. Proechel (pIntIn)
Okay, who am I talking to here? Ken or Glen?
This is the main point of my previous letter. Glen drops these little
comments into our discussions from afar, but then excuses himself from
participation in the discussion by not joining the list. I don't know if
he gets to see my remarks, just that I'm forced to see his. I find this
participation by proxy to be incredibly rude.
--Holtej