tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 05 15:48:39 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: RE: HoghwIj nI'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: RE: RE: HoghwIj nI'
- Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:48:13 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
jItlhIj. I was responding to a different part of the post where
someone ELSE who was quoting you and making inaccurate
presumptions based upon it was saying that the CK example was
superceded by this recent description and was therefore
incorrect.
You never said that. I know you never said that. But someone in
that longer post definitely said that, and I felt strongly that
they needed to be corrected. CK's method of time reporting is
still quite alive and well. Until Okrand tells about fractions
of an hour, or until we just decide to expand the labels to
include minutes, it provides us with the only way to be more
specific about time than counting or labeling hours.
charghwI'
On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:54:08 -0700 d'Armond Speers
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> jatlh charghwI':
>
> > > > > nI' jajvetlh Qu' - jav vatlh rep tagh 'ej wa'maH Soch vatlh rep rIn.
> > >
> > > > I've been wondering about the telling of time like this. In Okrand's
> post
> > > > to the startrek.klingon newsgroup on time-telling, he talks about two
> > > > systems, the military system and the non-military {'arlogh Qoy'lu'pu'}
> > > > system.
> >
> > This is not quite accurately reported. You make it sound like
> > there are two different systems of reporting time. One is
> > military and the other isn't.
>
> Excuse me, there is nothing inaccurate in my post. I was just asking a
> question. I even went out of my way to locate the original post and include
> it in its entirety, so no one would accuse me of omitting relevant
> information. Okrand *does* talk about two systems, in detail, in that post.
> I never claimed they were the *only* two systems, as you seem to have read.
> The only thing missing was the information about time in CK, which you
> provided. (I need to transcribe that and get it into my canon database!)
> If I had *had* the info, I wouldn't have asked the question.
>
> wejpuH.
>
> --Holtej 'utlh
>
> tlhIngan Hol mailing list FAQ
> http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm