tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 21 06:55:30 2010
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: monastery
- From: "lojmIt tI'wI' nuv" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: monastery
- Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 09:53:48 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:x-priority:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=3DGp2R+SlGCwiDPSZnx3AEWgBK7/F1/611tN2wbekSc=; b=FsjrzyDwceV1MKHX33+tugtQNYbArcogTEAb2ltZWdMy5V8af2RO19xBDPU0xDWJi7 /fPy3VQ2e1tRdfdyeWI3ilQftbvZol1qfAsDYJviPClOoioBn47nwGmeKhcOzBstYod3 2wE08Zipu8MfRTKcYghRrvONwIQRKEF67UKG0=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:x-priority:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=neMnr+xSX59VfxgE7NrZoeA1TKrN5eExYjVctfqk8HJQOA9adomrGdRzyFIkRnM+Ez +5WjypQWNFdRrGodwoMdGIr0+x0ksBZPOoPv7fG69UR4h6rdppiCZfMK17ZvpmOlrFkg drEsctvHxwlk1ZtNnO1C8/vvHk3vo5y8ShidM=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
I'm trying to follow your argument. I'm failing. Sorry.
I would never refer to any building as a "religious community". To me, a religious community is a collection of people (a roster), or perhaps the organization in which the people participate, or perhaps the culture that the people identify with. It's either the people, or the stuff that the people do that differentiates them from non-members.
If the people move to a different building, then the community is no longer identified with that building. If the people live or otherwise function in a collection of buildings, then the community exists, even though there is no single building that defines them.
I can see a building as part of the culture that identifies the community. It is a symbol they point to and think "us". But this is peripheral. There is something much more essential about the community than the building.
Okrand does not consistently answer the question that a person asks him. He often answers a related question that dodges certain aspects of the original question. I really think that if you think {ghIn} is a building, you need to confirm that explicitly. Otherwise, you are presuming something based on what you want as the answer rather than what actually is the answer.
And good luck getting that response.
pItlh.
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
On Dec 21, 2010, at 3:39 AM, Lieven Litaer wrote:
> ja' naHQun:
>> As far as I can tell, the confusion comes from the fact that the English
>> word only means a building, yet his text leaves a bit of doubt.
>> Reading the question as well, I'll take the odd phrasing as a typo and
>> gloss it as a building.
>
> Thanks for the confirmation, I thought I had missed something. I have looked at Maltz' message again, and I believe I see the confusion:
>
>> The word for monastery is {ghIn}. This is a pretty general term for a
>> religious community.
>
> You can read read this in two ways:
>
> a) {ghIn} is a term for "a religious community"
>
> b) {ghIn} is a term for a "religious community"
>
> Got it?
> He could have said {ghIn} is a general term for my mother, or my dog, and for anyone else. {ghIn} is the word for "monastery" and it's a general term for anyone who likes to use it.
>
> Don't confuse it with "<<tlhIngan>> is a general term for <<Klingon>>"
>
> I think we can now all gloss it as the building. At least for me, it's clear.
>
> Quvar.
> --
> GRATIS! Movie-FLAT mit über 300 Videos.
> Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome
>
>
>