tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 28 16:47:56 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: mu'mey chu' vItIv

> From: <>
> peHruS
> > > tetlh is a list, chem refers to grid cells.
> >
> > While you speak with certainty, the fact remains that we have no
> > definition for {chem}. It has appeared as part of three compound nouns and 
> > it appeared as a separate word (or a typo intended to be a compound noun) 
> > in a word pair for which there was a definition. Meanwhile, Okrand never 
> > gave us a definition for the word by itself. If it never appears in Klingon 
> > except in this one word pair, {peQ chem}, or in one of these compounds, 
> > {Surchem, pIvchem, HoSchem}, then it is not okay to use it as if it were a 
> > separate word not requiring the other word in the pair, or the other 
> > compound elements in the compound nouns.
> Thanks to /peQ chem/ using /chem/ as a separate word, if someone uses /chem/
> in a way not already established by Okrand, I'm not going to bat an eyelash.
> Do you REALLY doubt that it means "field"?

By that argument, {'un} must mean "stirring", since {'un naQ} is a "stirring 
stick". {ghIlab} must mean "glob", since a {ghIlab ghew} is a "glob fly".

The thing that makes {chem} so much more appealing with "field" is the apparent 
consistency of its appearance in four definitions. Meanwhile, the justfication 
for actually using it as a separate word is the inconsistency of that fourth 
example where it appears as a separate word. There's an excellent chance that's 
a typo and it should be {peQchem}, just as there's a good likelihood that on 
the BoP poster, {lo' law'} should have been {lo'law'} as a noun for "utility". 
And then, there's that fifth example, {chemvaH}...

So, let's look at the words:

Should we consider {chemvaH}? A "field vaH"?

HoSchem - energy field
peQ chem - magnetic field
pIvchem - warp field
Surchem - force field

What other sorts of field do you want to talk about? Can you be sure that a 
Klingon would consider this other kind of thing a field?

Surely, it is not synnonymous with {yotlh}, despite the {chemvaH} reference. 
How can you be sure that anything that is not an energy field, a magnetic 
field, a warp field or a force field is, in a Klingon's perspective, a field?

So, what other kind of field do you want to talk about?

> The only possible reason why I might hesitate to use it is that it might
> turn out that /chem/ is a verb meaning "exist as a field (of something)," or
> something like that.  I also don't believe this.

That's a possiblity I had not considered. The effect would be the same, 
however, if this is the full range of fields considered.

> Do we put it on the New Words List?  No, there are still questions.  Should
> we be afraid to use it separately, in limited contexts?  No, I don't think
> so.

I can deal with this. I do have some difficulty using it to refer to a cell in 
a grid, which is what I originally objected to. You don't seem to be responding 
to that, though.

> And just how often do you talk about fields of force, etc., on the list,
> anyway?

> > And I'm really mystified as to how you got it to mean "grid cells".
> As am I.

I'm relieved.

I really think I was ready to just not comment if he had defined it as "field". 
When he went for "cell in a grid", I just felt compelled to comment, though.

> SuStel
> Stardate 2161.8


Back to archive top level