tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Oct 25 08:34:14 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: jIbergh
> > > qen labwI' choH "UPN" 'ej labwI' chu' viSuqbe'.
> > > wa' Hogh ret 'entepray' bejmeH "cable" vISuq 'ej DaH vIbejlaHbe'.
> > > qoH chaH "cable" loHwI''e'.
> >"I did not acquire a new transmitter". For UPN this can work because they
> >are transmitting. You could have added mI' or per. labwI' mI' -
> >transmitter number. labwI' per - transmitter label.
>
> What I meant to convey here was that previous to getting cable I didn't
> "get" the new UPN affiliate station, i.e., my antenna didn't pick it up.
> Would {Hev} be a better word than {Suq} to use for receiving
> transmissions?
> Is {Suq} specifically an act of physically obtaining something? TKD is
> not very clear on this.
Oh, I thought you wrote that UPN changed to a different channel and you
didn't "acquire" the new channel number. I pictured you flipping through the
channels looking for it.
Suq isn't wrong, it's just not what comes to my mind when I hear it. It think
of Corporal Clinger on MASH, don't ask how he "acquired" the stuff.
We have a couple verbs "transmit", we have "transceiving device", but we don't
have just a (radio wave) receiving device.
If I didn't first look for a possible better word, I probably would have used
Hev.
DloraH, BG