tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 13 20:41:55 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Computer lists, and vocab
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: Computer lists, and vocab
- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 09:38:46 -0500
- In-Reply-To: Will Martin's message of Fri, 4 Feb 94 12:04:53 EST <[email protected]>
>From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
>Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 12:04:53 EST
>On Feb 3, 3:52pm, ~mark wrote [and charghwI' replies]:
>> Subject: Computer lists, and vocab
>...
>> Note "mej" and "tlheD", rather near synonymns. We also have jagh, ghol,
>> and 'ovwI' (maybe. Look up the last under 'ov).
>I dunno. I see a significant difference in shade of meaning between an
>enemy, an adversary/opponent and a competitor. I could see facing you as a
>friend in a contest and saying:
>not jaghlIj jIH 'ach DaH ghollIj jIHqu' 'ej reH HochvaD 'ovwI' jIHtaH.
>To paraphrase a recent poster: Mwahahaha'a 'a 'aahhhh
>> Or HeQ and lob. There are certainly subtle differences between these,...
>I'm not sure it is so subtle. "Comply" implies that one does the minimum
[...]
I wasn't trying to imply that the words here were perfect synonymns; I was
just trying to show people the existence of these similar words that
probably weren't noticed right off. Just things that struck me as odd.
Discussion such as yours was pretty close to what I was hoping for.
A few more fun ones: "?yoHghach" is apparently properly expressed as
"toDuj" (a rare two-syllable noun not obviously a compound. And somehow
suggesting that Klingon uses -Duj as an ending for abstract nouns like
English uses -ship makes my stomach churn. co-incidence). QID and rIQmoH
are similar, and 'argh and Sab also share some features (though there are
plainly differences. Fun pun with 'argh, though, with things worsening and
the exclamation "ARGH!!"). I was thrown the other day when I saw someone
use "DuH", since I remembered "qIt" as the word for "be possible". Looks
like another close pair...
>Of similar interest is the term "troop", which is a collective term that
>should generally be used in the singular, except when referring to people in
>the military, when it becomes plural, even though you never use it in the
>singular to refer to an individual in the military, thus the following rules
>by example on the use of "troop/troops":
>* Any civilian group of individuals can be a "troop"
>* A specific kind of military group is a "troop"
>* Civilian individuals are never "troops"
>* Soldiers are "troops"
>* A soldier is never a "troop"
>* A soldier is never "one of the troop"
>* A soldier is "one of the troops"
>* A civilian may be "a member of the troop"
>* A soldier may be "a member of the troop"
>* No one is ever "a member of the troops"
>* Any person may "belong to the troop"
>* No person ever "belongs to the troops"
>* Any person addressing their subordinates "talks to the troops"
>* Even when talking to a non-military group, no one ever "talks to the troop"
>* Even though "a troop of troops" makes sense, it is NEVER okay to say it.
Heh... not to mention what happens when we talk about a troupe!
>charghwI'
~mark