tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 07 19:41:28 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Names vs. new words?
Alan Anderson wrote:
>
> 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
DaQIjchu'ta' vIyaj
qatlho'
Qapla'
QetaH
(Chet Braun)