tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 29 06:40:11 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon in the News
- From: Alan Anderson <aranders@netusa1.net>
- Subject: Re: Klingon in the News
- Date: Fri, 29 Jan 99 09:08:27 EST
mujang peHruS:
><< And I don't think anyone *ever*
> figured out what you meant by {'uywI' beQwI'}.. >>
>
>This is not from me. I do remember seeing {beQwI'} in Hamlet for "shelf."
>This is an outright fabrication by the translators.
Maybe I should suggest that you read what *you* write before accusing
people of lying? Permit me to refresh your memory.
Back in March of 1988, you posted a story about Theo's adventures in a
world without certain inventions. In the context of trying to smooth
clothing, you used the phrase {'uywI' beQwI'}, which SuStel guessed
was an attempt to describe an iron. Your response to him:
|>"iron" 'oSbe' {'uywI' beQwI'}. yIloyqa'!
|>paq HamletDaq mu' {beQwI'} botu'laH.
I pointed out that nobody would have any idea you were thinking about
Hamlet when you wrote the phrase, and asked for some more information
so we might have a better chance of understanding it. You replied:
|>And, finally, {'uywI' beQwI'} comes earlier on, but I'll leave it for more
|>speculation for now.
*I* refused to speculate, especially since your next sentence was:
|>In conclusion, this article was posted for communication, not guessing games.
In the more than ten months since you used the phrase {'uywI' beQwI'},
I haven't seen it explained. At least you told us what {maqwI' ghom}
was supposed to represent when I commented on how its meaning wasn't
apparent. Knowing what you wanted to say opened the way to explore
other more obvious or expressive vocabulary -- even if it looks like
you rejected your own wording because you thought it was mine.
-- ghunchu'wI'