tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 10 10:44:41 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: Word for "random"

David Trimboli ([email protected])

• From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: Word for "random"
• Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:48:26 -0500
• References: <HIG62OLNM04EBYVO6Z0971JHYOJM.3fd746c7@quvar>

From: "Lieven L. Litaer (Quvar)" <[email protected]>
> >I'm still strongly attracted to {pat}, though, despite Voragh's and
> >Quvar's examples, which refer only to objects,
>
> These are all Marc Okrands examples, which refer only to objects!

Okrand never explained how to use the word.  He never said, "It means this
and not that."  He just gave us a one-word definition, and used it a number
of times.  That does not prove that ter'eS is wrong.

He's not declaring that /pat/ must be able to refer to conceptual systems,
he's saying that he THINKS it can.  Likewise, you THINK it can't.  There's
no proof either way.

I personally don't see any reason to say that /pat/ can't refer to a logical
ordering.

SuStel
Stardate 3941.6

• References:
  • Re: Word for "random"
    • From: Lieven L. Litaer (Quvar) <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Word for "random"
• Next by Date: Beginner's Grammarian
• Prev by thread: Re: Word for "random"
• Next by thread: Re: Word for "random"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level