tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 13 10:19:40 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIH vIchuHlu' - Words mentioned earlier but not in the
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: jIH vIchuHlu' - Words mentioned earlier but not in the
- Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 15:19:39 GMT
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Qov" <email@example.com>
> > I didn't mean to define it as authorize. I suppose
> > by following up to that definition with an origin I
> > appeared to second it. I would say that it means,
> > "examine for defects" or "examine to verify
> > something is as represented."
> IF Okrand "examined to verify something is as represented" and it was
> published as such, I would again ask the list if that meant it was
> considered canon by the KLI.. If I don't who else can someone ask for advice
> like that.
If you had a verifiable source for something and stated the source and content
and asked, "Is this canon?" then you'd probably get a straight answer. I'm
catching a lot of flack for not directly answering what I honestly believe was
not directly asked. Maybe you sent an attachment that never got distributed to
the list, since the list doesn't distribute attachments.
Whatever the case, the more direct and clear the question, the more direct and
clear will be the answer. This process involves responsibility at every stage,
not just at the answerer.