tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 22 10:48:06 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: qama'

On Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:19:45 -0800 (PST) 

> In a message dated 2/19/1999 1:43:28 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> writes:
> << I will confess that I repeatedly asked for {'arlogh}, but please 
>  note that I did not say the form of the word had to be 
>  {'arlogh}. I suggested that we needed a question word to mean 
>  "How many?" and one easily recognized candidate would be 
>  {'arlogh}, but if Okrand wanted to come up with a word 
>  pronounced completely different that had that meaning, it was 
>  fine with me. Also, if he had an idiom, or a different 
>  grammatical construction to ask this question, that would be 
>  fine with me as well. I just wanted some way to ask the 
>  question. {'arlogh} was just one possibility. >>
> Since you have shown that you repeatedly requested a word for filling a
> "hole," I will request filling a hole which I feel logically needs a word.
> Instead of convoluting sentences in Klingon to cover a concept in English, I
> "request" this word.

qama' yIngu'.

You consider that to be convoluted?

I requested {'arlogh} or its equivalent because there was a real 
hole in the language. Others agreed. I asked for ways around the 
lack of it and nobody came up with anything. I could not come up 
with anything. It was a yearning in the language. I was not even 
the person who came up with {'arlogh}. I don't remember who did.

It is actually not important who did. The point is the language 
itself is better off with it.

Meanwhile, your insistance about *'arDIch* seems rooted far less 
in concern about the language than in your personal 
accomplishment of having added a new word you personally 
insisted on having. You don't care if nobody else wants it. You 
want it. You'd probably like it if we had to put a footnote(1) 
on it every time we use it.

(1) This word added by peHruS.

I tell you what. Why don't you focus on {jaH} for a while. You 
were actually right about {jaH}. This doesn't happen so often 
that you should take it casually. Play up {jaH}. Revel in it. 
Use it more. Talk about how you were pushing for its current use 
back when everyone else disagreed with you. Enjoy it. Allow it 
to make you feel "whole". bInaQ.

And while you are at it, ease up on the rest of the vocabulary, 
> It actually is not new for me to think that there should be a word for a
> concept.  I tried to use {SopmeH jan} or anything similar before we got {raS}.
> But, many times I requested to know what the real Klingon word is for "table."
> I kept saying that Klingons must have a word for table.  They certainly could
> not use many, many syllables to describe an everyday object.

We all wanted table and we were all happy when we got it. I 
doubt that your personal mission to get us a table was all that 
more admirable than anybody else's. The difference that I saw 
was that you wanted to declare what the word for table was. The 
rest of us just wanted a word for table and worked around it 
until we got one.
> In conclusion, I think requesting to know what the real Klingon way of
> covering a word, idea, concept from English is great.  MO appears to listen to
> our "wish lists."  He appears to take note of our discussions.  He eventually
> lets us know what is right and where we have become sidetracked.  Thus, the
> more we challenge ourselves with ideas regarding the possibilities in Klingon,
> the more answers we eventually get.

And the pushier and more presumptive we get; the more we look to 
take the language out of his hands whenever we think we've found 
a missing element, the less interest he has in helping us.
> peHruS, DuDwI'

charghwI' 'utlh

Back to archive top level