tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 25 17:47:23 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} DIGEST V1 #60
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} DIGEST V1 #60
- Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 17:47:23 -0400 (EDT)
According to R.B Franklin:
...
> In the original post, the question was for a way to say, "Nothing
> which vanishes can not be tracked down." In this case, I thought
> {rIntaH} would be a better choice in meaning "nothing which vanishes
> remains a fait accompli (that it has vanished)". In other words,
> sooner or later someone will find it; it does not remain hidden for good.
>
> I do not think {-chu'} sematically fits well with the meaning I intended
> because it would indicate nothing can perfectly vanish, that is, even if
> it tries, it can still be seen or detected; which is different than saying
> things can vanish, but they don't remain unfound.
Hmmm. This depends upon your interpretation of the meaning of
"vanish". For me, when something vanishes, it provides sensory
data which would cause one to conclude that a thing that was
there is no longer anywhere. If it moved somewhere else, then
it didn't vanish. It only "apparently" vanished. If it
transformed into something not recognized as its former self,
but still traceable to its former self, then it has only
"apparently" vanished. If it perfectly vanished, then it is not
anywhere to be found. If one ever finds it again, then it did
not perfectly vanish. Hence, if a thing can ever be found
again, it has not perfectly vanished.
A transporter causes a thing to apparently vanish. A disruptor
causes a thing to perfectly vanish, except perhaps for some
insignificant ash or other residue. Even then, since there is
some remnant of the prior existence, the target cannot be said
to PERFECTLY vanish, hence, nothing perfectly vanishes.
> yoDtargh
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |