tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 20 12:55:54 2010
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: monastery
- From: "lojmIt tI'wI' nuv" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: monastery
- Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 15:53:29 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:content-type:mime-version :subject:from:in-reply-to:date:content-transfer-encoding:message-id :references:to:x-mailer; bh=muRzOtCI2sxbKzXyU/I32i0HM4Tl5nuP3wtKLwfa8F4=; b=tbN3s2kViUmt1Nttj06wv13gb8giDim1kepAov5ec/sV0Vckf+//aiZ2lPL9csbpkp 5z2WLzF6RcWYKVtrPpnWe6x93YpB2kir3zjw73ylnK7bvZZm7/tBGOXkAH/N5XBMNsRn AnQ3jsrkl8nwmdsjptaFIi7+nzaYUZhs363UM=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=BgTuyGb/rls1gJbIYCjQjPCFL3bM5VAI6Er8GNYZZdJP8PLFG99GPmWGOamwKzEOpi aPthFH0VaaQ9VsKWeKezaOLnGUPdjz2rFMBSB1WOz4L7IeFEd8kRfdfzKRpQNHnO7psy HIbu7Um4LhJRZepa6e38nQuoTqexb1bh+aI2c=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
Was any of this paraphrased, or was it all literally text that Okrand wrote? I'm concerned that we may have had some dilution of the definition here, shaded by interpretation. I really like to see stuff from Okrand as raw and uninterpreted as possible, unless the interpretation has been reflected back to Okrand and approved by him. It would be unfortunate for us to have strong personalities here come up with an interpretation that doesn't match Okrand's and have us take the inaccurate interpretation as if it were vetted perfection.
pItlh.
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
On Dec 20, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Terrence Donnelly wrote:
> --- On Sat, 12/18/10, Lieven Litaer <[email protected]> wrote:>
>> <<<<<<
>> The word for monastery is {ghIn}. This is a pretty
>> general term for a
>> religious community (and the term "religious" could be
>> interpreted in
>> various ways as well), so it can be modified. A
>> {ghIn'a'} would be a
>> pretty important monastery, for example.
>>>>>>>>
>
> I understood this to be a building or complex of buildings occupied by a specific group. I really don't think "monastery" has any other meaning, and I think his mention of {ghIn'a'} as a "pretty important monastery" reinforces the idea that he meant an actual building. All of Okrand's qualifications I think are his acknowledgement that Klingons aren't religious in the usual sense we give the term. Even the Borath monks, for example, aren't religious aspirants or spiritual seekers as we would understand it, but guardians of a tradition of disciplines centered on (but not worshipping) Kahles. When the Kahles clone appeared, it was confusing, but not blasphemous (could you imagine what would happen if someone appeared claiming to be the clone of Jesus?). My point is that I think Okrand is leaving room for there to be Klingon groups with a certain level of discipline and organization that might occupy a {ghIn}, but would not be religious by our standards.
>
> -- ter'eS
>
>
>