tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 21 19:26:19 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: {boq} and "fusion" (was Re: Problem Words)
Please:Stop sending me your mail:Thank You!!!
Please Remove This Address : [email protected]
We were flamed,Please forward the name and address of the mailing list that
you're on,so we can get off of it!!!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> Alan Anderson
> Sent: Monday, December 21, 1998 9:14 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: {boq} and "fusion" (was Re: Problem Words)
>
>
> Thanks for using NetForward!
> http://www.netforward.com
> v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
>
> ja' charghwI':
> > >Hong boq chuyDaH: loS
> > >Impulse Fusion Thrusters - 4
> >
> >You are the second person to completely miss my point. When we
> >assign a name to a noun, our assignment can always be arbitrary.
> >We have a collection of things to which we assign the word
> >"fusion"...
> >
> >Meanwhile, we have a different set of things we arbitrarily
> >assign the word "coalition". These two sets of things
> >(coalitions and fusions) are not generally considered to have an
> >intersection.
>
> Both words refer to things coming together to form a new entity. Why are
> you averse to the possibility that {boq}, which means a combination of
> separate parts into a unified whole, and which is translated as "fusion"
> on the toQDuj poster, might mean "fusion"?
>
> >Maybe the word {boq} covers all cases of things we
> >would call "fusion" and all things we would call "coalition", or
> >maybe the Klingons see this impulse device and consider it a
> >coalition while English speakers consider it "fusion". Maybe for
> >all other "fusion" concepts, Klingons would use a different word.
>
> The device isn't a coalition. The process by which it operates is.
>
> >[snipped lots of possible but unlikely scenarios]
> >
> >It just seems presumptive to see the word {boq} in this name for
> >this device and assume that we know how the word is being used,
> >so we can plug and play. Whenever we see "Fusion", we can
> >replace it with {boq}. I just don't like it. I've gone along
> >with it for the New Word List, but it leaves a bad taste in my
> >mouth.
>
> It's not a replacement for the *word* "fusion", of course. But it sure
> looks like a valid way to express the ideas of nuclear fusion, political
> groups joining forces, musical styles drawn from multiple origins, even
> genetically combined offspring of parents from separate species...
>
> >> Based on the meaning of the words, I'd expect that {boq} indeed
> >> is used when referring to nuclear fusion. I'd also expect that
> >> it's used for other kinds of fusion. (I would *not* expect it to
> >> refer to the process of melting from applied heat, which is also
> >> called "fusion" on occasion.)
> >
> >My, how arbitrary of you. And you do it with such certainty.
>
> You have an interesting concept of "certainty" -- notice the word "expect"
> repeated many times in my paragraph? Again, I don't see anything
> arbitrary
> about referring to things coming together as coalition.
>
> >You get a lot of mileage out of very little evidence.
>
> My evidence, such as it is, includes the similar core meanings of the two
> words {boq} and "fusion", and the fact that they are used as translations
> of the same idea on a poster with Marc Okrand's name on it.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
>
>