tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 19 08:55:13 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Klingon WOTD: waQ (v)

Philip Newton ([email protected])

• From: Philip Newton <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: Klingon WOTD: waQ (v)
• Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:54:50 +0200
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:07:03 -0500, Steven Boozer
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Considering this TKW example and the fact that {bot} also appears in
> {botjan} "shields (force field on ship)", it's *possible* that {bot} is
> used for more physical or tangible obstructions while {waQ} *may* refer to
> other types of obstructions (e.g. bureaucratic, political, malicious,
> etc.), making it closer to {nIS} "disrupt, interfere with, hinder".

OTOH a {nISwI'} causes fairly concrete (i.e. non-abstract) disruptions...
-- 
Philip Newton <[email protected]>
HovpoH 2443.31

• References:
  • Klingon WOTD: waQ (v)
    • From: [email protected]
  • Re: Klingon WOTD: waQ (v)
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Klingon WOTD: waQ (v)
• Next by Date: Re: canon pIqaD
• Previous by thread: Re: Klingon WOTD: waQ (v)
• Next by thread: Re: Klingon WOTD: waQ (v)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level