Re: Hoch

["William H. Martin" <whm2m@server1.mail.virginia.edu>]

On Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:51:44 -0800 (PST) WestphalWz@aol.com 
wrote:

> Meanwhile, this is a perfect example of how you and SuStel have "defined" the
> word as YOU have read it from TKD for yourselves.  Quite often I have felt out
> the meaning of KLingon words.  For that, I have "suffered the slings and
> arrows of fate" because your interpretations have differed.
> 
> peHruS

Your perceptions clearly differ from those of many here. I'll 
share my perspective on what you describe: You declare an 
interpretation of a word that nobody else agrees with. You 
rarely have a basis for these declarations, and people argue 
with you about that.

I do want to give you credit where it's due. You were apparently 
more correct in your use of {jaH} than I was. Meanwhile, your 
hit rate is overall pretty low and I would not take that success 
as cause to embolden your unconventional interpretation of the 
vocabulary.

So far, I've seen two interpretations of Hoch vs. naQ. Yours and 
everybody else's. Everyone who has spoken up so far has agreed 
on one, and you alone insist on the other.

This is the kind of event that you later interpret as your 
"feeling out" the meaning of the words and suffering slings and 
arrows from your abusers.

Not that I'm expecting a perspective shift or anything. I just 
thought I'd offer the feedback.

charghwI' 'utlh