[1535] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: law' puqpu' -- tidbits
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Mon Sep 13 18:09:37 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 93 16:20:42 EDT
Captain Krankor comes through once again with an appropriately strong,
yet reasonable response. I accept his point and respond to a few minor
details:
...
> >> He also put in nuqneH
> >> with some misgivings, but that doesn't mean we go around telling
> >> people to avoid saying it.
He then reinforced nuqneH rather heavily on CK, so if he doesn't like
the term, he's doing a lousy job of burying it.
> You see, I have no real
> problem with you and I discussing and disagreeing over this [use of "to
be"].
> ...But the point is that this is
> a controversial, cutting edge arguement, and it is COMPLETELY UNFAIR
> AND INAPPROPRIATE to embroil someone who is just getting going
> *learning* the language in such controversy.
Herein lies my error. I had no idea that a beginner would be so
sensitive to my suggestion that by advising him to reconsider the option of
restructuring the sentence into something a little more naturally Klingon. I
never considered it "hitting him over the head." I'll try to be a little more
PC in the future, though the thought of a sensitive, gentle Klingon stretches
the imagination a bit.
> I'm not clear on IMESHO. It looks similar to IMHO.
In My Ever So Humble Opinion...
> I am not likely to
> misinterpret honest disagreement on a point with personal attack; I
> trust the feeling is mutually shared.
Through grinning, jagged teeth.
Qapla', HoDwI',
-- charghwI'
