tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 13 16:46:10 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: help with this.
- From: [email protected] (Denny Shortliffe)
- Subject: Re: help with this.
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 00:46:03 GMT
>>Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 21:21:17 -0700
>>From: [email protected] (Denny Shortliffe)
>
>>>>Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 08:19:11 -0700
>>>>From: [email protected] (Denny Shortliffe)
>>
>>I don't see that it's my job to determine who is and isn't a beginner.
>>The criterion I was given was "Subject begins with KLBC". Your point has
>>merit but I still feel that's not my job. And I don't see the BG rushing
>>in here, either to deal with the problem, nor to support your contention.
>>Until I receive a somewhat more official correction, I will stand by my
>>policy on this.
>
>See the archives of this list,
>http://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/1996/Oct96/0503.html. I'm pretty sure
>that's after you joined. (I know, the URL should be Sep96 and not Oct96;
>there's a hiccup in the program. I likely will have changed it to Sep96 by
>the time you look, so check both).
>Besides, you want official? I'm the Grammarian (no qualifier) of the list;
>does that count?
>
>>>Consider also the verb Qeq (aim) from CK (not in dictionary).
>
>>If, by CK, you mean Conversational Klingon, I'm not sure how you
>>determined the spelling of that word. In the dictionary, it's {qeq} and
>>means "to train" in the sense of "to drill", not "to aim". If it was used
>>in CK in that latter sense, IMHO, it was wrong (not the only case I've
>>found in that tape!). Therefore, I stand by my choice of {puS}.
>
>The verb in Conversation Klingon is *not* {qeq}, if you listen. The
>pronunciation is clearly {Qeq}, it's translated as "aim" and not "practice"
>("he aims the missile perfectly"; "drill" would not make sense), it was
>transcribed as {Qeq} in HolQeD and that spelling (like almost all the
>others in HolQeD) has been confirmed by Marc Okrand.
>
>~mark
Since this post was originally posted Oct 9 and you replied Nov 11, I
stand by the part where I said that the BG was not leaping in. You've
just proved that particular point.
You have also not indicated why TKD (the original document) says "qeq". I
don't have access to HolQeD (lack of funds) and can only go with what's
available commercially here in the Great White North. But how was I to
know that TKD is now considered unreliable and no longer canon?
BTW, I had decided, although I remain (obviously) unrepentant, not to
ruffle anyone's feathers any more over this, but to let it slide.
However, someone (not me) has decided, after over a month, to fan the almost
cold ashes back into open flame.
I suggest that, rather than anyone responding to this, that we ALL (yes, me
included!) just let it drop and get on with our lives.
qrlIH veStaySortlhIH
a.k.a.
--
Denny Shortliffe