tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 23 06:32:34 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Klingon WOTD: qeD (v)

QeS lagh ([email protected]) 

jIghItlhpu':
>We can't depend on TKD definitions for everything. If the definition was
>clear to me, I wouldn't have needed to ask. :)

ghItlhpu' SuStel:
>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.

Okay, what I was looking for were opinions rather than canon evidence. BTW, 
what's your take on {qI'}, SuStel? (I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm 
genuinely interested. I want to try and get as many opinions as possible.)

jIghItlhtaH:
>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.

ghItlhpu' SuStel:
>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.

I don't. It appears I *was* wrong, and that SuSvaj was right. SuSvaj pointed 
me to TKD, but the sketchiness of the definition in TKD was what prompted me 
to ask in the first place.

jIghItlhtaH:
>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.

jang SuStel:
>*WE*'ve come to this conclusion?  We who?

Agreed, I may have presumed a bit on this one, but when I originally asked 
this question some months ago, both ghunchu'wI' and, IIRC, Holtej 
(jImujchugh, HIlughmoH), both vetoed the sentence {taj moQ ghor ghItlhlu'pu' 
'ej qeylIS qab cha'} "the surface of the dagger's pommel (sphere) is 
engraved with Kahless's face", and Quvar also said that {ghor} was unlikely 
to refer to anything other than an astronomical body. I hadn't heard any 
argument from anyone, so I assumed (dangerous, I know) that that was the 
consensus. I still have a slight habit of taking the word of {po'wI'pu'} as 
gospel, unfortunately.

jIghItlhtaH:
>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.

jangtaH SuStel:
>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.

I thought I had asked for opinions in my original message, and that's what I 
was looking for. However, in retrospect it appears that what I originally 
wrote was more for evidence rather than opinions. SuSvaj, chotIchpu'chugh, 
qatlhIj. My apologies go to all those I may have inflamed.

QeS lagh

_________________________________________________________________
½ Price FOXTEL Digital Installation On-Line Limited Offer:  
http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=225&referral=Hotmail_tagline_July04&URL=http://ad.au.doubleclick.net/clk;9412514;9681905;p?http://www.foxtel.com.au/2231.htm

Back to archive top level