tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 07 15:02:01 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Names vs. new words?

QetaH writes:
>But I do find a fine line between naming a thing and assigning a new word to
>it.  Is {betleH} considered a name for a type of {'etlh} or a word?  Can I
>*really* make up a name for a battle ax without it being considered a new
>word?

You may name your own battle axe.  But if you want to use its name with us,
you must introduce it to us before you refer to it by name.

You may NOT "name" the class of all battle axes.  I WOULD consider that to
be a new word.  Names refer to individuals, or to specific sets of objects.
For instance, there's "brand" of violins called "Stradivarius".  They are
famous enough that one is expected to recognize the name.  If someone in our
"community" made a bunch of {betleH} blanks, they might become associated
with that person's name.  Owning a {*Homqab betleH} could eventually be an
honorable pursuit. :-)  But the name would not be a common noun.  It might
have an entry in an encyclopedia, but it would not appear in a dictionary.
(Perhaps eventually it might, after MUCH time had elapsed and its origins
became a legend.)

-- ghunchu'wI'               batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj

Back to archive top level