tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 13 20:30:24 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: DawI'
From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
> ja' "Clayton Rodrigo Cardoso" <[email protected]>:
> >I'd like to know if I can use the word DawI' for "emulator", such as SNES
DawI'.
> >If not, could anybody suggest something for that term?
>
> It works for me, though I'd probably say {DawI'jan} in there to make sure
> I was being explicit about it being a device and not a person.
Why would /DawI'/ without /jan/ mean a person? Because it's common list
usage? Again, I caution everyone about regionalizing the mailing list. The
only effect of /DawI'jan/ is to enforce the "artificial" list connotation of
/DawI'/ as "actor". Unless you'd care to suggest /DawI'ghot/?
/DawI'/ means "one/thing which behaves as (something)" or "one/thing which
acts in the manner of (something)." This can have a very broad
interpretation. "Actor" is certainly a subset of this meaning. So is
"emulator." There are a number of translations one might come up with, in
different circumstances. We'd need information from a Klingon before we
could peg exactly which one it might be. Or, as I think more likely,
/DawI'/ may simply be the translation in the first line of this paragraph.
Something which behaves as something else. Whatever those somethings may
be.
Just as we do not create our own words, and just as we do not change things
we do not like, neither should we add our own connotations to Klingon words.
Until Okrand tells us /DawI'/ means "actor," we shouldn't go making people
think that's exactly what it means.
> Better, I think, would be SNES-Hey. :-)
That would imply you're pretty sure it's an SNES, but not entirely positive.
In fact, you're quite sure it's NOT an SNES, it's an SNES EMULATOR. /SNES
DawI'/ happens to cover this meaning very well. /SNES-Hey/ doesn't work.
> >One more doubt:
> >Are correct the phrases below?
> >
> ><phrase 1> 'ej <phrase 2> 'e' DIQub.
>
> Ooh, tricky. I understand this, and it's got serious potential for some
> wonderful wordplay, but I don't think it's really grammatical. {'e'} is
> *always* used with a prefix indicating a third-person singular object.
The obvious solution is this:
<phrase 1> 'ej <phrase 2> 'e' wIQub,
where /'e'/ refers to the sentence
<phrase 1> 'ej <phrase 2>.
There is, of course, no way to know for sure that this is considered a
sentence as far as Sentence As Object constructions go. It doesn't seem an
unlikely possibility. However, one might be able to use the suffixes
/-law'/ and /-Hey/ to produce the same meaning. For instance, instead of
ghoS Duj wa' 'ej ghuS Duj cha' 'e' wIQub
We think ship number one is approaching and ship number two is preparing to
fire,
say
ghoSlaw' Duj wa' 'ej ghuSlaw' Duj cha'
Ship number is seems to be approaching and ship number two seems to be
preparing to fire.
SuStel
Stardate 120.9
Colon hyphen close-parenthesis.