tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Sep 22 20:32:35 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: puchpa'?

Alan Anderson ([email protected])

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: puchpa'?
• Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 23:31:30 -0400
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]>

ja' mI'qey:

> ...Is Klingon necessarily a more logical language than English?
> ...Do we have evidence for or against the proposition that Klingons  
> use euphemisms?

The ideals of straightforwardness and accuracy argue against using  
the word {puch} where it does not logically fit, and for using it  
where it does.

> Still, we don't require our toilets to be suitable for dressing any  
> more than we require our bathrooms and lavatories to be suitable  
> for bathing.

The use of the word "bathroom" for a room containing a toilet but  
lacking a bathtub is a regional thing.  Many people would call such a  
thing a "washroom", some get fancy with the term "powder room", and  
others would simply call it what it is:  a toilet.

-- ghunchu'wI'

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: puchpa'?
    • From: McArdle <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: puchpa'?
    • From: McArdle <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: puchpa'?
• Next by Date: Re: puchpa'?
• Previous by thread: Re: puchpa'?
• Next by thread: Re: puchpa'?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level