tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 30 12:45:39 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: nach (was: Re: Unsubscribe me -please-!!!)

Am 29.07.2002 20:51:22, schrieb "Agnieszka Solska" <>:

>problems understanding. The context of your message was very clear so you
>would have been understood if, instead of <QIn nach>, you had used
><!?QIn mIv> or even <!?QIn beb> to mean "header".

latlh QIn vIqontaHvIS, HovHommey vIlo'bej.
Next time I'll use the asterisques (*header*)

>Bottom line: I understood what you meant by <QIn nach> because of the 
>context and because I understand English. Whether <QIn nach> does mean 
>"header" remains to be seen.
That's true, I agree. But I've seen it very often here (now I find no example) that there are words that 
are used for things that everyone understands. Just translated from english to klingon, but not really 
canon klingon.
Anyway, I agree that {QIn nach} could be misunderstood as a "spearheads head"m making no sense to a 
btw, a "spear-head" is not a {naQ nach}, that's what you triedto tell me, right?


Back to archive top level