tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 09 09:15:56 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: nuqDaq matlh tu'lu'?
- From: Doq <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: nuqDaq matlh tu'lu'?
- Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:14:35 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=q/LBDyDdAT6p8KR4/XyZNdrFmyJ9z4vxvOgUhFsy3RaKDd65uhXMwfuaeFQH2QpP; h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
The problem is that the language was designed for a world which, so far as we know, does not include the concept of a photograph. I've never seen a photograph in any Star Trek episode or movie, except perhaps for the time travel episodes. We might see an image on a {HaSta}, but we don't see anybody pull out a piece of paper with an image of someone's face on it.
It's the same problem we have with "car" or "iPod" or "umbrella".
Doq
-----Original Message-----
>From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
>Sent: Feb 8, 2007 9:30 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: nuqDaq matlh tu'lu'?
>
>ja' Voragh:
>>> Some people have used *cha'wI'* for image, a "thing which shows".
>>
>> Yechh. If anything, that would mean an image viewer - a computer
>> program or device.
>
>jIQoch. I think {cha'wI'} works for "image" or "photograph".
>
>> BTW, Google uses *{nagh beQ nejwI'} for "Image Search" in their
>> Klingon
>> browser...
>
>That's one person's choice for how to translate it. I'd have been
>perfectly satisfied with some variant of {cha'}.
>
>== ghunchu'wI'
>
>