tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Oct 15 06:34:10 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Bad Mailer! bat'telh yISop!
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Bad Mailer! bat'telh yISop!
- Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:34:08 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:55:54 -0700 (PDT) Bryan Potratz
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks charghwI' 'utlh
>
> RE: MIME. OOPS. Sorry about that. I use 2 different mailers
> simultaneously & my post defaulted to the wrong one. This Better?
>
> >You refer to a nickname as a "dishonest label". Is that an idiom I missed
> in KGT?
>
> Hmm. I was using <pojwI' for Windows> by d'Armond Speers at work, since I
> don't have any of my books here. It's lexicon defines per yuD as
> "code-name". "Nick-name" was my paraphrase.
As Holtej already commented, pojwI' is great for quickly finding
things, but it is good to verify the source. I use it all the
time, but my one complaint about it is that the "comments" field
which can be filled in while adding or editing the included word
list, cannot be viewed in any other screen. I annotate source in
all my dictionaries, but I can't SEE the source in pojwI' unless
I go into edit mode (Ctrl-M).
The full reference he sent you showed that {per yuD} has a
specific technical meaning and "nickname" is not close. Nice
try, though.
> BTW: lomqa' is "Ghost" - straight out of my True Copy of Hamlet.
> Ghost=Spook, another convenient paraphrase?
Hamlet was a most ambitious undertaking. We had to construct a
few words to make it through. You found one we made up. We
needed the word for that context, but it is not canon. Okrand
did not make up or sanction it. We avoided this practice
whenever possible, but when we had to do it, we figured we'd use
a little poetic license and say that those words are antiquated
words no longer used in the modern vocabulary, like the English
"shalt" or "hither". At best, it is rather marked speech.
Especially for a name, it works fine, but casually dropping it
into a sentence and expecting someone to understand it will
probably not be universally effective.
> >tuHmeywIj Sam 'e' lunIDtaHvIS, peghtaHmo', lomqa' vIrurlaw'.
>
> >"Because my maneuvers continued to be secret while they tried to
> >observe them, I apparently resembled a spook."
>
> I LIKE that. I was having a devil of a time with the "to-be" issue. I
> personally prefer to write in E', but it is doubly hard to think in E' AND
> translate to tlhIngan hol. (See http://www.crl.com/~isgs/tobecrit.htm )
E' intrigues me. I find it challenging to speak it, even for a
paragraph or two, like this one. The effort refreshes me and the
resulting prose achieves a greater sense of clarity than those
which stoop to judge rather than to describe or which fail to
ascribe an action to its agent. The passive voice becomes
impossible and casual judgmentalism fails to fit within the
limits of the dialect.
Perhaps I should take it up more consistently in earnest.
For those who wonder what we discuss here, E' (pronounced "E
Prime") disallows the use of the verb "to be". That one rule
(evading that verb) constitutes the only difference between E'
and English. The challenge of speaking E' surprises most people
when they actually try to do it.
> Thank you for your comments. I will integrate them into my studies.
>
> BTW (2): I am NOT a retired SEAL. I was medically discharged from an Army
> unconventional warfare/special operations training group in '92. But that
> don't mean this dog caint hunt... {{;-{)
Who am I to argue with a medically discharged soldier from an
Army unconventional warfare/special operations training group?
> Qapla'
charghwI' 'utlh