tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 08 06:42:36 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: New word from Okrand
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: New word from Okrand
- Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 09:42:33 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "SuSvaj" at Aug 7, 97 11:43:35 am
According to SuSvaj:
>
> ghItlh charghwI'
>
> >Okrand never said this applied to "gate". He said door
>
> But a door, and a gate are essentialy the same. Even in TKD "lojmIt" is
> translated as door, or gate. In Klingon, there is no distinction.
We don't know that all verbs will respond identically to doors
and gates just because there is only one name for these
objects. I can wash a window and I can click on a window and
you know I'm not talking about the same thing, even though I'm
only using one name. One window can be resized. The other
provides fresh air.
> >tunnel. He also said it only applies if these things are open.
> >A rock passing through a window by breaking the glass is not
> >appropriate for {vegh}.
> >
> >What do these things have in common? You can't pass through the
> >wall without breaking it as you pass through, but you can pass
> >through a window or door.
>
> You can also pass through a forest without doing dammage, and yet, as you
> said, that usage is not correct. That's why I think it is the intended
> purpose of the passage that is important here. A tunnel, a door, or a gate
> are all intended for the purpose of allowing passage, where as a forest is
> not.
In most cases, a window is not intended for passage.
> ,Now, if TWO rocks were thrown through a window, the first one
> >smashes the window and does not {vegh}, but the second might
> >arguably {vegh}.
>
> No argument there.
So, you consider windows to be normal passages? Good argument
all the same...
> SuSvaj
charghwI'