tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 10 09:01:53 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Star Trek Communicator (was Re: KLBC question)

Hello.  This is Eric Zay.  I am new to this list, and to the Internet in
general, so please bear with me.  With regard to the posting about Star
Trek Communicator.  I have a copy of that issue also, and I believe that
the mission Ops. was given as <vu'wI' yaH> rather than to'wI' yaH.  This
also seems to make sense, as it means <manager station>.  If I am
completely wrong about this, please correct me. 

----------
> From: Mark E. Shoulson <[email protected]>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Star Trek Communicator (was Re: KLBC question)
> Date: Tuesday, September 10, 1996 10:32 AM
> 
> -----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-----

Back to archive top level