tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 20 11:18:02 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Some risque (not "risky") interpretations
- From: Susan Farmer <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Some risque (not "risky") interpretations
- Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 14:18:44 -0500
>
>On 20 Jan 96 at 8:56, Susan Farmer wrote:
>
>> I'm confused. Mark Okrand gave us /nga'chuq/ To mate with
>> (backtranslatable as to sex each other -- I know, a back translation
>> is heresy :-) )
>>
>> You have a word *spoken* on a tape, that y'all have decided is
>> spelled /ngagh/. It's obvious to me that the spelling of the word
>> on the tape should be /nga'/ becuase of /nga'chuq/. Why are y'all
>> so Certain that it's /ngagh/ when MO hasn't spoken? (Except to
>> provide /nga'chuq/??)
>
>Because Marc Okrand GAVE us the correct spelling via Dr. Schoen in
>HolQeD 3:3. If the case had been less clear-cut I'm sure ~mark would
>have mentioned it. He's very careful about that sort of stuff (cf.
>his article on the new words from Power Klingon in HolQeD 3:2
>for proof of that).
>>
I will take your word for it *now*, but in all the times that I've seen
people talk about /ngagh/ it is as "the word on the tape that we think
is spelled /ngagh/." I had *never* seen on this list anybody day that
we *KNEW* how it was spelled. Now I know. Thank you.
tevram