tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 10 07:29:04 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Star Trek Communicator (was Re: KLBC question)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 11:02:07 -0700
>From: "Kenneth Traft" <[email protected]>
>From: [email protected] on behalf of Steven Boozer
>Sent: Thursday, September 05, 1996 12:23 AM
>>Also, how is the magazine as a whole? Is it worth buying a back issue
>>from the publisher? (I collect Klingon fanzines.) Feel free to respond
>>off-list.
>I really like the issue as it jammed full of some nice pictures. For the most
>part the thing reads as an product catalogue with a few articles. I am a
>member to the "OFFICIAL FAN CLUB" so get it automatically as well.
I have to get me a copy of it.
>Glen Proechel has written down some things of interest he noted from the
>collection.
Ooh, cool! Thanks!
>adventures <<tuHmey>>
Aha, works... maneuvers.
>archives <<tamey ngo'>>
Excellent! Thanks very much, Glen/Ken (and of course Marc), for settling
something I've disagreed with Krankor about for a while. I had been saying
that "ngo'" is the opposite of "chu'" like "qan" is the opposite of "Qup."
That is, people and living things who have lived a long time are qan, but
an object that isn't new (or at least isn't new to someone in some aspect)
is ngo'. It's the same difference as malnova/maljuna in Esperanto, and
yashan/zaqen in Hebrew. I'm pretty sure Glen thought the same, as did many
people.
Krankor disagreed (perhaps due to his fresh perspective, since he doesn't
have quite the same linguistic training as some others, and isn't hampered
by what to "expect" to see). He believed that "qan" meant "old" just as in
English: for people and things alike, being the opposite of both chu' and
Qup. (See his "exam" story in HolQeD, in which he refered to "nav qan" for
"old paper.") As for "ngo'", he said it meant "old" in the sense of
*former* (as in the old president, not to be confused withthe current
one). It's not the "new" one, but the one that was there before. Me, I
didn't buy it, but I had no canon.
Now I have. Calling archives "former records" doesn't make much sense
(unless you mean that when something happens, it's first recorded as a
record, and then sometime later becomes something else, while more recent
events become records, and the older ones become "former records"; this is
really a stretch). But "old records" is quite logical for archives; that's
what they are.
Sorry, Krankor. That's the way the qagh wiggles. Now to break the news to
him gently...
>data access <<De' naw'wI'>>
Whoa. Someone get me the sentence in which this occurs; it looks like an
instance of -wI' used to mean the *act* instead of the *actor*! I'm not
going to get too excited about this until I see the context.
>holodeck <<tojbogh pa'>>
Someone mentioned this. This is very cool.
>Mission Operations <<Qu' to'wI' yaH>>
Hmm! to'wI' is a new word; to' is a noun. This may be another thing along
the lines of De'wI' and jonwI', for "tactician" or something.
>trivia <<ngoDHommey>> ** ILS use to use Dochmey ram,
>will now use this
Both work fine for me; just because one is found to be correct doesn't mean
the other isn't also right.
Thanks for the list, Ken!
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMjV7J8ppGeTJXWZ9AQH4vAL/QijLAx32BS8KIL8hSw57n1i58WmOJfXh
GNMiH+gxCae661CJ1eqE7DDIvav0KWyr6+ugxm4gVYax7OVb7YT4InrvZS1ojg92
UiCMeJJGBC0aBmEuWV7t14CYIaKW68YA
=YjPJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----