tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 17 05:36:36 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: (KLBC) Bye bye
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: RE: (KLBC) Bye bye
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 08:36:10 -0500 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Tue, 17 Dec 1996 03:29:29 -0800 HurghwI'
<[email protected]> wrote:
> At 09:30 PM 12/16/96 -0800, you wrote:
> >On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, Michiel Uitdehaag wrote:
...
> >toH! She's your "par'Machkai" then. Now that Okrand has given us parmaq,
> >how would this be rendered: parmaqay(')? parmaqqay(')? parmaqQay(')?
>
> What makes you think it's {qay'} there? I think the word is probably
> {parmaqoy}, which sounds the same, but makes sense.
After all these years that people have tried to use {bang} to
refer to the abstract concept of "love" rather than to the
person indicated in Okrand's definition, now people are using
{parmaq} to refer to a person, rather than the abstract concept
referred to in Okrand's definition. wejpuH.
Face it. Worf couldn't order a meal in a Klingon restaurant. He
could not call off a charging targh. He could not use Klingon to
get directions to the bathroom. I doubt he can count to three in
Klingon. The only Klingon words he knows are ones he made up
himself. And you listen to HIM to try and figure out how words
are spelled and what they mean?
bIDoghchoHchu'meH DughojqangmoHbogh qoHna' yISam.
> >Considering that parmaq is "the Klingon word for love, but with more
> >aggressive overtones," it's amusing to note that qay' means "be a
> >problem/hassle" and Qay' is to "blow one's top"! {{;)
Some people are easily amused.
> >Voragh
>
> -HurghwI'
> Hovjaj 96962.3
charghwI'