tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 19 09:09:53 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Klingon WOTD: qI' (v)

Lieven L. Litaer ([email protected])

• From: "Lieven L. Litaer" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: Klingon WOTD: qI' (v)
• Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:10:14 +0200
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• Organization: qepHom.de
• References: <[email protected]>
• User-agent: Opera7.11/Win32 M2 build 2887

Am Sun, 19 Sep 2004 11:55:57 EDT hat <[email protected]> 
geschrieben:

> Whether it is strictly for signing treaties or has broader applicability 
> is unknown (a la SuStel),

as usual, SuStel is right (too bad he's gone).
If we stick 100% to canon, it says "sign a treaty".

> although my impression is that the latter (i.e., signing any kind of 
> document) is how most people actually use it.

Yes, as we've had the discussion in "Re: use it", I would say you can use 
it like that, because everyone will understand what you mean. That's just 
how it's used, becaue there is no other word.
I will keep using it like that - until I'm proven wrong.

As you said yourself in another mail:
--------
Simply because Okrand may (or may not!) decide that some usage is incorrect 
is no reason to avoid that usage or to avoid spreading and teaching that 
usage.  If he changes something, he changes it.  We adapt, and go on.
--------

PS: even in terran languages, many words are being misused, although nobody 
says it's wrong, because everyone understands.

Quvar.

• References:
  • Re: Klingon WOTD: qI' (v)
    • From: [email protected]

• Prev by Date: Re: Klingon WOTD: qI' (v)
• Next by Date: Re: Klingon WOTD: qI' (v)
• Previous by thread: Re: Klingon WOTD: qI' (v)
• Next by thread: Re: Klingon WOTD: qI' (v)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level