tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 07 22:38:14 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: bIchuSchoHqu''a'
ja' Joel Peter Anderson <[email protected]>:
>Joel's two bit theory of why using the (possibly) wrong word is good:
motlh vay' QaQmoHlaHqu' Hoch ghu'. 'ach ghu' Qatlh DachenmoHta'chugh,
ngoQlIj 'oHpu' meqqoqvam'e' 'e' yImaqQo'.
Some good can usually come from *any* situation. That doesn't mean
setting up contentious situations intentionally should be a goal.
>If I'd used a word that no one took issue with, would we have had this
>interesting discussion?
qatlh SoHvaD Daj? <parmaq> Dapolta'. qarHa' 'e' DachID, 'ach bImultaH.
'ej <parmaq> Dalo'Ha'pa' qechvam wIqelpu'qu' jay'! 'oplogh maja'chuqpu'.
<chay' "love" mughlu'> wIghelpu'. maja'chuqtaHvIS nuqDaq SoHpu'?
What did you find so interesting about it? I note that you are stubbornly
clinging to the word which you admit is a very poor match for the concept
you are trying to translate.
And we indeed did have this discussion before I asked about your signature.
We have considered what "love" means several times in the past few years.
Where were you during those discussions?
> Another reason I use "parmaq" in the quote is,
>if-and-when anyone asks about it, it provides an opportunity to discuss
>the history of par'Mach -> parmaq, the sources for tlhIngan Hol
>vocabulary, the slow move of tlhIngan Hol from an idolect to language and
>so forth.
mu'vammo' Duyu' qunqoqvam Sovbe'bogh 'Iv jay'? 'ej qatlh potlh jay'?
bIja'law' QIt Holna' moj tlhIngan Hol. nuqjatlh? 'oghDI' Marc Okrand,
HolHey 'oH. mu'ghom lIngDI' Pocket Books, Holna' 'oHbejqu'.
What person is going to ask you about this word without already knowing
its "history"? And who gives a ****? It looks like you're saying that
tlhIngan Hol took a long time to become a language. Say what? It was
something very like a language the moment Marc Okrand thought of it, and
when The Klingon Dictionary was published, it was most certainly a real
language.
-- ghunchu'wI'