tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 26 20:38:10 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Nature phenomenon
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Nature phenomenon
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 23:39:04 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 14:11:15 -0800 (PST) "Mark E. Shoulson"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 11:17:15 -0800 (PST)
> >From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
> >
> >According to Qov:
> >..
> >> {jev} I believe refers to storm, as in to storm an enemy position, not a
> >> nature phenomenon.
> >
> >I'm curious where you picked that up. I don't see any reference
> >to this in any of my word lists.
>
> I think this is "I believe" in the sense of "it is my opinion that." And a
> sensible one too; "storm" as a verb with no further context aside from
> being part of a warrior's language like Klingon is likely to be a military
> term (like {ngaq}). Then again, it's not marked. COuld be either, but
> it's certainly as good a guess as any.
>
> ~mark
Then again, it looks an awful lot like {peD} and {SIS}. I hold
that the weather interpretation is exactly as valid as the
military one. Note that {ngaq} IS marked as having the military
meaning and {jev} is not.
So, for those of you who can't deal with {jev} as a weather
term, how do you describe a storm. Are you really willing to
spew out {pe'vIl SISlu' 'ej HoSghajqu' SuS} ignoring the equally
meaningful and far more concise {jejlu'.}?
charghwI'