tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 19 18:08:52 2010
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: monastery
- From: R Fenwick <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: monastery
- Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 12:05:12 +1000
- Importance: Normal
jIjatlh:
>Indeed, if a {ghIn} is really more the community than the building, and if
>Okrand's note on the term "religious" in the gloss offers as much latitude
>as it seems to, I wonder if, say, the Old Order Amish (not a monastery in
>any usual sense of the word) could be considered a {ghIn}.
ghItlhpu' naHQun, jatlh:
>So now I have to ask, is a ghIn defined by geography? There's an Amish
>community a few hours North of me. There is a defined geographic area for
>this group.
>But other religious communities don't necessarily have the same boundaries.
>They live intermingled with other religious and non-religious groups.
>Can I refer to the yID ghIn in Indianapolis? Despite the fact that they are
>spread out? Or the yID ghIn in general; with a global perspective?
Again, this is all based upon impressions; feel free to ignore my ramblings.
YMMV, but for me Okrand's gloss of "monastery" - no doubt the original prompt
for {ghIn} - implies a certain degree of both social and physical cohesion and
insularity, if not outright seclusion. So if you said {yID ghIn}, I probably
wouldn't understand that to mean "the Jewish religious community" in the more
general sense, since that community are, as you say, intermingled with various
other groups both socially and geographically.
In the absence of any other data, the impression I get is that a {ghIn} might
form a kind of {nughHom} or a {lalDan nughHom}: not really substantial enough
to be a distinct culture or society, but a small unit that acts like one in
many senses, having its own established rules, interactions and mores and in
some ways separate from the {nugh} at large.
QeS 'utlh