tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 22 19:44:11 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
re: pun?
ja' Voragh:
>A dog of mixed or dubious species {mut} is also called a "mutt".
nuqjatlh?! lughHa'chu' De'qoqvam jay'! QInwIj wa'DIch yIlaDqa':
jIja'pu':
>"dog" 'oHbe' mut Sar "dog"-qoq'e'.
>reH "Canis familiaris" 'oH "dog" mut'e'.
If it's of mixed or dubious species, it's not a dog. You'd have to misuse
either or both of the words "species" and "dog" in order even to consider
the question.
And the word "mutt" refers to a *stupid* dog, which quite often is of a
specific and known breed. Sheepdogs are the archetypical mutts. (I think
it originally meant anyone or anything stupid, but the association with
dogs is now pretty much universal.)
If the supposed joke is based on interpreting "mutt" as "mixed species", I
reject it completely. It requires two separate stretches of meaning,
either of which by itself might perhaps be forgiven, but in concert they
are unacceptably contrived.
>: "The Fate of Civilized Species" translates as {mut tay' San}. That means
>: nothing to me either in written or spoken form.
>
>Even when you yourself translate it {mut tay' San}? Think "mutation".
I'm trying to think "mutation", but it's not easy. They certainly don't
look anything alike past the first three letters. "Moot-tie(hic)-shahn."
"Myoo-tae-shun." They don't sound very much like each other to me either,
but I'll take your word for it. However, I still haven't the foggiest idea
why that would be funny. Are civilized species assumed to be especially
prone to mutation?