tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 20 09:55:20 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Star Trek Cinema Movies

Scott Willis ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: Star Trek Cinema Movies


> From: "Scott Willis" <[email protected]>
>
> > This is not official usage, but on this list, "movies" are sometimes
> called
> > {lut'a'} (as opposed to {lutHom} "episode")
>
> Eh?  This is the first I've heard of it.

Just a few examples, off the top of my head
Using {lut'a'} to refer to a movie:
http://kli.org/kli/langs/KLItlh.html
/tlhIngan-Hol/2003/August/msg00090.html

Using {lutHom} to refer to an episode:
/tlhIngan-Hol/2003/July/msg00123.html
/tlhIngan-Hol/2003/November/msg00037.html

Not to mention the times just recently I've used {lutHom} without protest
from anyone:
/tlhIngan-Hol/2003/October/msg00137.html
/tlhIngan-Hol/2003/November/msg00005.html

> This hearkens back to the /-'a'/
> /-Hom/ panel at /qep'a' wa'maHDIch/.
>
> When I see /lut'a'/, I think "epic."  When I see /lutHom/, I think
> "anecdote."

And I see them in terms of duration. A movie is longer than a show, but
they're both still {lutmey}. (OK, Lawrence has a point about the whole
consensus thing.)

> We simply have no convincing way to render "movie."

{bIlugh}, and I see now I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to present this as
gospel.  I was simply saying that this is one way that at least two others
have rendered "movie" (Hence the "sometimes"). Merely suggesting a way to
get across the idea of a story that lasts a while, that's all.
>
> SuStel
> Stardate 3886.6

--ngabwI'
tIq. taQ. tlhIngan tlhaq. HovpoH!
http://web.tampabay.rr.com/ngabwi/
HovpoH 700814.4

Back to archive top level