tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 17 20:13:28 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Dung="north" NOT
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: Dung="north" NOT
- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 09:11:39 -0500
- In-Reply-To: David Barron's message of Thu, 17 Feb 1994 10:57:04 -0700 (MST) <m0pXCyH-0009iqC@idptv>
>From: [email protected] (David Barron)
>Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 10:57:04 -0700 (MST)
>I was on a Klingon Echo BBS and read a post. SOmeone wanted to find a
>way to say "north". He called Glenn Proechel who recommended Dung to
>mean "north".
> I got into a huff of disagreement and probly said more than I should have
>(I DO consider Glenn my friend).
>I will not justify my argument here, but I want your comments.
Gads, the net was mean to me today; I hope I can catch up...
OK, "Dung" for north? Um, I don't see that it's *definitely* wrong, but
more importantly it's certainly not *definitely* right. This is about as
bad as being wrong, since all we have for it is "above", and if you're not
using it for "above"...why, you could be saying anything. We in
English-speaking places associate "north" with "above" on a map, but that's
*NO* reason to believe anyone else would. Some cultures use east, south,
etc... Assuming that Klingons would use N/S/E/W, or else figure we're
Terrans trying to use our terms, perhaps nIH/poS/'et/'o' would be the words
to try, in some permutation. I used "'et" for "east" in my Jonah
translation, but only because I had *something* to go on: the Biblical
Hebrew word for "east" is related to the word for "forward", so I could say
I was following *that* culture. Whatever is done; we should stick to some
sort of standard.
>David Barron
~mark