tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Sep 07 20:40:27 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Star Trek Communicator (was Re: KLBC question)
- From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Star Trek Communicator (was Re: KLBC question)
- Date: Sat, 7 Sep 96 22:40:16 CDT
- In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 7 Sep 1996 20:11:22 -0700
Voragh wrote about Glen Proechel's notes which he thought Kenneth Traft
quoted to the entire list:
>> >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).
>
>>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
It renders them irrelevant. Please disregard. I was just speculating on
Proechel's theories on -wI' derivatives. Apparently Glen mis-remembered
the phrase and, since he thinks (or used to think, as he wrote me in
private correspondence) that we could add -wI' to a bare noun, didn't
realize that this was a problem. That is why I asked Kenneth (who is
running Glen's Interstellar Language School while Glen is in Khabarovsk)
to verify it independently. It looked wrong to me when I saw it and I
wanted to double check before entering it into my Annotated Klingon
Dictionary.
Voragh