tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 20 23:24:17 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

chay' jIruch

Captain Krankor ([email protected])

• From: Captain Krankor <[email protected]>
• Subject: chay' jIruch
• Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 02:23:01 -0400

Hmmm.  There have been some posts and private email that suggest that
people feel like my recent blunder was No Big Deal.  I even was told
the following:

tetlhDaq yISaHlI'. DaSaHQo'chugh, chaq jatlh 'op: puj HoD Qanqor; bIQ rur.
tIqlIj yI'ang. batlh telthDaq yIqonchu'.

Well, let me just respond to that:  pujbe'chu' HoD Qanqor.  tlhIngan tIgh
pabmeH yap HoSDaj.  The fact of the matter is that what occurred could
definitely be construed as a major honor-stripping screwup.  I, the pabpo',
was publicly found explicitly counselling a beginner to deliberately violate
a rule of Klingon grammar.  To me, this seemed like quite a Big Deal.

On the other hand, I am touched and honored by the show of support I have
received.  I'm really not sure what batlh requires at this point.

vaj jIDegh.  I will throw out a replacement proverb.  If anyone feels that
that is inadequate, let them call me webwI' and I will accept discommendation
and leave without further comment.


jagh DajeymeH nIteb yISuvrup.

        --Qanqor

• Prev by Date: RE: New vocabulary and {law'/puS} variants (HQ 13.1)
• Next by Date: Re: chay' jIruch
• Previous by thread: J.G. over Klingons - tlhIngan Hol DajatlhlaH 'e' DaneH'a'?
• Next by thread: Re: chay' jIruch
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level