tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 10 14:38:17 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Word for "random"

Steven Boozer ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

ter'eS:
> >> I'm still strongly attracted to {pat}, though, despite Voragh's and
> >> Quvar's examples, which refer only to objects,

Quvar:
> > These are all Marc Okrands examples, which refer only to objects!

SuStel:
>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.

I agree.  Certainly every English speaker on this list will understand him.

>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.

Other than the 18 examples as a physical system and *no* counter-examples 
as a conceptual system.  <g>  Also, note the anomalous phrase from SP3:

   nuH pat
   weapons grid SP3

where {pat} is translated as "grid" not "system".  (Okay, this is ambiguous 
too, since a grid is another kind of highly-organized pattern!)

This is one of the reasons I insist on providing every single known example 
in these discussions.  Occasionally seeing all of them side-by-side reveals 
an unexpected "undocumented feature" of the language, or a hint at what a 
given Klingon word (and not it's English gloss) really means or how we 
should use it.  Of course, this doesn't work in those cases where we only 
have one or two examples, but here I think 18-0 is a pretty strong 
hint.  Not absolute proof, of course - only Maltz can provide that - but 
certainly something to think about.

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

Unless the underlying idea of {pat} isn't "pattern/logical ordering" but 
"different objects used together" -- like my CPU, monitor, keyboard, mouse, 
router, network server, etc. that I'm using right now; without any one of 
these components ({bobcho'mey}, {'ay'mey}?), we couldn't be having this 
discussion.  You don't have to see underlying patterns, just that these 
things have to be connected together to work - rather like individual 
crewmen need work together to make a crew.

Or maybe not.




-- 
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level