tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 12 00:50:41 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: jIH vIchuHlu' - Words mentioned earlier but not in the

ghunchu'wI' wrote:
>ja' qe'San:
>>...I just wish people
>>couldn't get away with bending the truth the way Keith did..  He could have
>>just stopped at acknowledging advice from MO but saying the list was vetted
>>by Mo was what made me really wonder.
>The term "vetted" really doesn't mean "authorized" the way you seem to be
>taking it.  It basically just means "examined".  There's an implication of
>approval, but there's no special status granted to what has been examined.
>I think that's the root of your continued nagging about whether the D.I.
>glossary is canon, even after getting strongly worded opinions about how
>many (most?) of us count only "official" work by Marc Okrand in that

I asked about the word "vetted" earlier, and got definitions from qe'San, who 
is from the UK, and Qov, who is from Canada, who both essentially said it 
meant "authorize".  I'm American, and I had asked a couple other Americans 
about the word -- one didn't know what it meant, and the other thought it 
simply meant "examine".  If I'm not mistaken, ghunchu'wI' is American too.

So maybe this confusion about the glossary is based on a language barrier.  
If the author of this book is American, and said his words were "vetted" by 
Marc Okrand, maybe he never meant they were authorized at all; he just wanted 
to say he'd shown them to Okrand.  Maybe he didn't think he _was_ bending the 
truth to say they were "vetted".

Just a thought.


Back to archive top level