tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 17 14:08:26 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: HIQaH
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: HIQaH
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 17:07:20 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 12:22:22 -0500 Terrence Donnelly
<[email protected]> wrote:
> At 10:50 AM 8/17/99 CDT, Marc wrote:
> >
> >> {lojmIt} for "door", I don't know what to call the device that
> >> unlocks it. I could coin {ngaQwI'} or {ngaQHa'wI'}, but then
> >> I've violated my design goal of using only simple canon words.
Perhaps you have overly extended goals. If there is no simple
word for what you want, then you need a description of it. When
I've imagined this, I've considered that the lock is the ngaQwI'
and the key is the ngaQHa'wI' because it is the lock which locks
the door and it is the key that unlocks it. But that's just my
own perverse way of looking at it. I'm sure it would not work as
a general use of the words.
Likely, whatever you use, you need to explicitly explain your
choice of words and explain why you have chosen them in the
absence of something better.
> >if this isn't a mediaval kind of setting, you could have the
> >door's computer scan the permit of the adventurer. slight problem(?)
>
> Do'Ha'; it _is_ a "medieval" setting (or anyway, a pre-technological
> phase of Klingon history).
Don't assume that medieval technology isn't technology. A
stone-headed bludgeon counts as technology. Technology existed
long before electronics.
> -- ter'eS
>
charghwI'