tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 01 09:19:31 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC challenge
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC challenge
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 12:19:15 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
ASCII doesn't carry mood very well. It was late and I felt a
little frustrated to face something this advanced under the KLBC
header, which I'm obligated to answer. I had to pull out the
poster and scan it to find the example (since you didn't offer
it) to figure out what you were talking about and then figure
out how to justify it and then express all of this response in
Klingon as I had promised to do.
Still, I did take that time and I did answer it. I also asked
that, having myself taken that time and answered it that you
would take the corresponding time to translate all of the
message. That was part of the original deal, remember?
I'm still waiting.
charghwI' 'utlh
On Thu, 1 Jul 1999 06:33:10 -0400 Carleton Copeland
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ja' charghwI':
>
> poHwIj DapoQqu'.... bIqay'qu'. *KLBC*vaD 'Itlhqu' qaDlIj. choghong.... DaH
> bIqay'pu'. qaDwIj naQ yIta'. mu'meywIj yImugh. HaghwI' Qav yIngu'.
>
>
> jIjang:
>
> I wasn't sure how to judge the tone of your message, but due to the
> infrequency of smiley faces, I tended to read it without irony. I never
> meant to waste your time or abuse your challenge, though I did allow myself
> to have fun. (After all, you encouraged "an inventive question".) I was
> genuinely interested in testing my Klingon and had the clever idea (so I
> thought) of combining this exercise with a grammar question I've been
> wondering about. I normally have to rein in my curiosity, since my
> questions tend to get flak for being either too elementary (i.e., spelled
> out clearly in TKD) or, in this case, too "advanced". Can't win for
> losin'.
>
> P.S. Does this mean I can't use KLBC any more?
>
> P.P.S. My translation is forthcoming.
>
> qa'ral
>