tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 28 13:40:44 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 11:12:35 -0700
>From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
>~mark writes:
>> No offense to the esteemed Robyn, but along the lines of "Disengage
>> cloaking device", you can always do "wovwI' yIchu'Ha'!"
>marqoS replies:
>>To me, {wovwI'} is "bright thing" - accurate, but not terribly precise.
>>I think {wovmoHwI'} would be better.
>{wov} sounds to me like it describes reflectivity, while {wew} is emmissive.
>How about {wewwI'} or {wewqu'wI'}?
Interesting. I remember once having the same discussion about boch
vs. wov, and deciding that "wov" was emmissive while "boch" was reflective
(we seem to have forgotten about wew at that time). So where DOES that
leave "wov"?
I THINK we have a certain amount of support for "wov" as
emmissive... wasn't it used in the Hallmark commercial, talking about the
lights on the ornament?
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMatkvcppGeTJXWZ9AQHc1wL/VscfXIfq0ir1aVjykmJEeAOEdRJ3DpIm
b+dyrtq0I4zpQsUgS4ALavVZ77f1DZba5Woy/30bjTIe5gqjnBYg9Jr1ZdsleEcg
oazCj5D58pso5jRNosNVlAU0jDJc6Jca
=ivPZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----