tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 17 10:39:22 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: 'oy'naQ

Lieven Litaer ([email protected])

• From: "Lieven Litaer" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: 'oy'naQ
• Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 19:38:34 +0100 (MET)
• References: <[email protected]>

> lay'tel is right:  the spelling "stik" is supposed to look more "trekky" 
> and futuristic.  

Really??! I can't believe it!

(I do believe you, but it's just an expression: "I just can't believe it!")

> 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?

No, I can't remember anything like this. (please tell me if there are any)
If they do, then it looks more ridiculous, or not serious, but a {'oy'naQ}
is a "Schmerzstock", nobody will ever accept "Schmerzstok" just because it
looks more "trekky".

Quvar.


-- 
+++ NEU bei GMX und erstmalig in Deutschland: TÜV-geprüfter Virenschutz +++
100% Virenerkennung nach Wildlist. Infos: http://www.gmx.net/virenschutz

• References:
  • Re: 'oy'naQ
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Klingon WOTD: yIQ (v)
• Next by Date: mush vISush
• Previous by thread: Re: 'oy'naQ
• Next by thread: mush vISush
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level