tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 25 14:50:03 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: meqleH (again)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: meqleH (again)
- Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:49:33 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 12:26:33 +0100 (MET) Jeroen Vantroyen
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, William H. Martin wrote:
>
> > You've leapt from that observation to confidence in the
> > statement that the term betleH is a corruption of the term
> > batlh 'etlh. Now, you encounter meqleH and make the even
> > greater leap of faith that it has a similar origin.
>
> It's the other way around, as stated in Klingon for the Galactic
> Traveller.
>
> > Frankly, you waste your time worrying about this. We have
> > two perfectly fine words here and we know what they mean.
> >
> > Who needs to know more and why?
>
> I do know why I'm asking this question. I'm cuurently doing an exam on
> Klingons. There's only one question I can't answer : "What is the meaning
> of the word meqleH?". You see why I need to know?
As has been pointed out to you several times now, the
"meaning" of meqleH is "a bladed weapon larger than a
knife, intended for use with one hand. It resembles half a
betleH." That really is the meaning of the word. You are
trying to derive the etymology of the word, which is not
the meaning of the word.
> Thansk again,
> Jeroen
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Captain Jeroen Vantroyen
> Commanding Officer, USS Belgica NCC-72301
> Assistant Director, Diplomatic Corps, Region 9
> Acting Dean, European Campus, STARFLEET Academy
> DOIC, 359 MSG
> http://inf4serv.rug.ac.be/~jvtroyen/
> -------------------------------------------------------------
charghwI'