tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Sep 07 20:08:19 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Star Trek Communicator (was Re: KLBC question)
- From: qarghan HoD <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Star Trek Communicator (was Re: KLBC question)
- Date: Sat, 07 Sep 1996 23:09:24 -0400
- Organization: The Klingon Warrior Academy
- References: <[email protected]>
Steven Boozer wrote:
> >personnel files <<ghotpu' tamey>>
> >archives <<tamey ngo'>>
>
> {ta} ("file") would seem to be of use to the thread on computer terms.
Agreed.
> >Mission Operations <<Qu' to'wI' yaH>>
> ^^^^^^
> Could you recheck this for us from the magazine itself? Jeffrey Stimac
> (qarghan HoD) pulled out his copy and verified the exact text of what was
> printed (noting the frequent substitution of lowercase "l" for uppercase
> "I" by the copy editor/typesetter), not remarking on what I had posted:
I am looking at it right now and it says {Qu' vu'wI yaH} (ST:Communicator
#104, page 10).
[[snip]]
> If {to'wI'} IS correct, then it would seem to be another of the handful of
> {-wI'} nouns derived from other nouns Glen was so interested in (e.g.
> {De'wI'}, {DeghwI'}, {HerghwI'}). Or they may just come from verbs that
> are either obsolete in the 24th century or otherwise unmentioned by Maltz
> during his talks with Federation linguists (e.g. {chamwI'}, {jonwI'},
> {nubwI'}).
Ah, but it is not correct, so how does this effect you above comments?
---
Jeffrey Stimac
qarghan HoD