tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 12 00:50:41 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIH vIchuHlu' - Words mentioned earlier but not in the
- From: SoberAlien@aol.com
- Subject: Re: jIH vIchuHlu' - Words mentioned earlier but not in the
- Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 00:50:30 EST
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
>category.
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.
-Sengval