tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 12 05:53:02 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: HolQeD 3.4. -wI'
{Since Mr Proechel doesn't have net access, for the sake of debate, I
counter some arguments made....}
On Wed, 11 Jan 1995, William H. Martin wrote:
> According to David Barron:
> >
> > ~marc, charghwI',
> > I would like your opinion on Prochel's proclaimation that -wI'
> > can be added to a verb to mean "one who is" as in HeghwI' "dead man".
>
> He also mentioned Heghpu'wI', which struck me as MUCH better.
> To me, HeghwI' means "one who dies", which doesn't tell you
> much since all of us fit that description.
As happens on this beauteous list, I had an epiphany.... >HeghwI'< would
seem to be the noun meaning "mortal".... Thus "immortals" might be
written as >Heghbe'wI'pu'<..... And the undead would clearly be aptly
described as >HeghHa'wI'pu'<, since they kind of die the wrong way. :-)
> Basically, Okrand makes exceptions from time to time when he
> creates words and Proechel wants the right to do the same thing
> any time he wants. I'm surprised he doesn't note the typos in
> TKD and conclude that it is okay to omit the apostrophe in
> {-'egh} and that a lowercase {S} is okay. Basically, he is yet
> another person discontent to learn and use the language, much
> more interested in making it his own by changing it wherever he
> feels he can justify doing so.
I think these remarks are ad hominem, based on our previous impressions
of Proechel. I see that he did a good job with his article, and as for
these other issues, one might conclude the financial hit he took last
summer might have brought him to the conclusion that he mightn't want to
continue straying from the flock. After all, without his arguments over
the KBTP, do you really think we'd have made the June 13, 1994 Wall
Street Journal front page!!!!!!!!!!!
> Using his own interpretation of {-wI'} meaning "one who is", I'd
> call him {QIpwI'}.
Completely irresponsible comment, and flame bait---except he has no net
access, so it's kinda like using TV to call ascetic monks stupid. I'm
not laughing here.
As for the linguistic comment... It *ain't* HIS interpretation of >-wI'<,
it's what the grand poobah >?pub'a'< Okrand writes on TKD p44 and 164!!!!
Are you implying then that >QIp Okrand<? It seems so.
> charghwI'
BTW, we don't seem to find charghwI' in the TKD. Must not be a legal
form then, huh?
Dave Sturm.