tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Sep 04 21:12:05 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: QIn
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: QIn
- Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 00:12:07 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Tue, 2 Sep 1997 05:21:58 -0700 (PDT) David Trimboli
<[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] on behalf of qoror wrote:
>
> > I'm glad we got the word QIn. It's much smaller and succinct than
> > jabbI'ID, which we would otherwise be using.
>
> {jabbI'ID} still works just fine as we've been using it. E-mail really is a
> data transmission. (Hmmm . . . I wonder if the "transmission" part of that
> must be taken literally. That is, it must be transmitted on some frequency,
> and not sent hard-wired.)
>
> However, {QIn} also works for things like hand-written messages, which are not
> covered by {jabbI'ID}.
Yes, or spoken messages or gestures where symbols of some sort
impart language containing information from one person to
another. All messages use language.
Meanwhile, a blueprint or a movie or a spreadsheet or a database
might qualify for jabbI'ID and not QIn, while an officer
entering a cell, gesturing to a guard by pointing to a prisoner,
then using the same finger to mime a blade slicing across the
officer's neck would be a QIn the prisoner would not altogether
welcome, though no transmission took place.
jabbI'ID moj QIn lablu'ta'bogh.
> --
> SuStel
> Stardate 97666.9
charghwI'