tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 28 17:49:44 2000

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KliFlash [Was: Re: tlhIngan Hol pojwI' 2.0]

At 18:44 00-01-28 -0500, SuStel wrote:

}My impression is that the first sentence is unacceptable to the experts on
}the list, while the second is all right.  I fail to understand why.
}
}So why is {ben law'} superior to {ret}?  They're both pretty vague.  You at
}least know the order of magnitude you're talking about with {ben law'}, but
}nothing else.  Would {ben yaH lon} be acceptable?  "Years ago he abandoned
}his post"?

I really wanted to agree with SuStel on this one, because I am aware of the
bias towards the way we've always said things.  Newcomers have to have the
guts to say, "Why do you say X, when there's a perfectly good word Y?"
because the answer often is, "because there never used to be Y, and so we
developed the habit of saying X."

That said, I think it is possible that the Klingon words for "ago" and "from
now" can only be used with some indication of a time period.  (Like "ago"
and "from now" in English.)

Ago we didn't know haow to specify something in the future if it was not
days or years in the future.  Perhaps from now we will find a certain way.

The issue is not the "Klingons are never approximate" boast.  (Heck, if
Klingons never did all the things Worf has claimed Klingons never did, there
wouldn't be anything for Klingons to do).  The issue is whether the words
can be used that way.  There's no proof they cannot be, but I think there is
still reasonable doubt that they can be.
Qov 'utlh

Back to archive top level