tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 27 10:52:41 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Nature phenomenon
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Nature phenomenon
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 01:57:57 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: William H. Martin <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, January 26, 1998 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: Nature phenomenon
>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.
We're not saying that one is more valid than the other. We're just stating
opinions here, and admitting we just don't know.
>So, for those of you who can't deal with {jev} as a weather
>term,
I CAN deal with the idea. Until we get an answer from Okrand, YOU'LL have
to deal with the fact that we don't know one way or the other. :)
>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'.}?
I find this non-argument surprising coming from you, charghwI'. Surely you
are not suggesting that a lack of a clear way to say something is evidence
in favor of the proposed but unconfirmed easy way to say it? What happened
to all that recasting you're so fond of? Not every concept need have a
single word to describe it. You know that.
In fact, I find nothing particularly cumbersome about your sentence above.
Perhaps Klingons really appreciate a good storm, and are willing to
embellish it with lots of descriptive phrases.
pe'vIl SIS[lu'] 'ej HoSghajqu' SuS! QInlat HIvbogh SuS rur! yuQ ghorDaq
baHtaH yo' qIj!
SuStel
Stardate 98073.3