RE: KLBC?: De'wI' mughghachmey [sic]

["d'Armond Speers" <dspeers@thomtech.com>]

> >Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 17:49:57 -0400
> >From: "d'Armond Speers" <dspeers@thomtech.com>
>
> >Of course, /ghItlhwI'/ means "thing which prints" as much as it means 
"one
> >who prints."  For clarity, my first impulse would have been /ghItlhbogh
> >jan/, but I like the terseness of /ghItlhwI'/.  Sort of parallels 
/So'wI'/:
> >do you think of the officer whose job it is to through the cloaking 
device
> >switch, or the cloaking device itself?
>
> <cloaking device> Hechba' <So'wI'>- wa' Doch 'oSchu'.

ghobe', jIQoch.  Okay, think of /baHwI'/.  Is it the officer whose job it 
is to fire the weapon, or the weapon?  We have /baHwI'/ referring to a 
person, and /So'wI'/ referring to the device.  Either could be interpreted 
in both ways, we just have accepted interpretations of them from TKD.  So, 
/ghItlhwI'/ is ambiguous; so what?

> SoHvaD mu'vam Dalo'DI', wIv QaQ <ghItlhwI'>.

What?  "/ghItlhwI'/ goods a choice"?  Unless you take /QaQ/ to be 
transitive, you're missing a verb.

> 'ach
> latlh nuv DajatlhDI', mu' pIm Dalo'chugh Duyajchu'.

The beautiful thing about language, is that there's always another way. 
 But I really don't see the confusion you do here.  There's a lot to be 
said for context, too; you're looking at the desktop, at a picture of a 
printer, labelled /ghItlhwI'/.  Your personal tendencies at reading /-wI'/ 
aside, I think it's pretty clear.  Right next to /veQ ngaSwI'/, /De'wI'/, 
and /QumwI'/, which I also think are very clear.

Hey, why are we arguing, anyway?  It's my desktop!  :)

> -- valwI'

--Holtej