tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 16 14:37:19 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: 'oy'naQ

Steven Boozer ([email protected])

• From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: 'oy'naQ
• Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:37:10 -0600
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]>

lay'tel SIvten:
> >> which is the better way to spell it: "painstick" or "painstik"?
> >> 'stik' is more trekky, and 'stick' is more english.
>
> > It is in TKW as "painstik"

Quvar:
>I'm really sorry - and I'm not a native speaker - but a "painstick" is a
>"stick", and a "stik" looks like a typo.

lay'tel is right:  the spelling "stik" is supposed to look more "trekky" 
and futuristic.  This phonetic style of spelling is occasionally seen in 
English language science fiction set in the far future (as if the origin of 
the word or proper name has been forgotten).  Do they do this in German sci-fi?

Of course, the normal English word for {'oy'naQ} is, of course, cattle 
prod.  <g>



-- 
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: 'oy'naQ
    • From: "Lieven Litaer" <[email protected]>
  • mush vISush
    • From: "Lieven Litaer" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: 'oy'naQ
    • From: "Scott Willis" <[email protected]>
  • Re: 'oy'naQ
    • From: "Lieven Litaer" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: multiple verb suffixes
• Next by Date: Re: multiple verb suffixes
• Previous by thread: Re: 'oy'naQ
• Next by thread: Re: 'oy'naQ
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level