tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 22 19:25:05 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Klingon WOTD: qeD (v)

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>

> ghItlhpu' SuSvaj:
>
> >Let's stick to the TKD definitions and try not to insert our own
> >assumptions here.
>
> We can't depend on TKD definitions for everything. If the definition was
> clear to me, I wouldn't have needed to ask. :)

If we can't depend on TKD, then other sources must do.  If we can't depend
on those other sources, then the answer is that we don't know.  You're
getting to the "we don't know" point and demanding an answer anyway.

> It says in the dictionary that {qI'} means "sign (a treaty)". My
assumption
> was based on the brackets at the end of the definition; I wanted to know
> exactly how generally the Klingon verb applied.

Since the word hasn't been used by Okrand, we don't know.  Take your best
guess, but don't assume that makes you right.

> For instance, {ghor} means
> "surface (of a planet)"; we've come to the conclusion that likely not all
> spheres have a {ghor}, only astronomical bodies.

*WE*'ve come to this conclusion?  We who?

> In the same way, I wanted
> to know what people understood to be the limits of "sign (a treaty)", and
it
> seems that most agree with you.

If you want to know people's opinions, why do you complain about them when
they give them to you, as you did to SuSvaj?  Please specify that you're
looking for opinions, rather than evidence and inference.

SuStel
Stardate 4558.7

Back to archive top level