[1626] in tlhIngan-Hol
eD ngerwIgholpu' vItamchoHlaw'ta'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri Oct 8 16:53:56 1993
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
From: DSTRADER@delphi.com
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1993 16:37:49 -0400 (EDT)
X-Vms-To: IN%"tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.east.sun.com"
It appears that the opponents to my mI'QeD theory have no problem
with my merely suggesting the idea to Okrand. And that's exactly
what I've done. Of course, indirectly. I sent an E-mail tL.M.Schoen
not going into evtangent and minor detail of the theory. I only
mentioned that there was a word {vatlhvI'} and I wondered if -vI'
might really be a reciprocal marker. I requested the message be
somehow given to Okrand (I'm not sure what connections Schoen has
to Okrand or how soon this theory will be endorsed or thrown away.
I won't be terribly pained if he outright chews my theory up and
spits it into a lake of boiling tar. I consider current knowledge
of Klingon mathematics inadequate and impractical, anyhow, and
wasn't planning on translating Dirac's quantum mechanics theorems
into Klingon or anything like that.. We also have no negative numbers,
no ways of expressing mathematical operations (+-*/), and we definitely
have very little knowledge on Klingon systems of measurement. (Just
how long is a kellicam, anyways??) This doesn't imply that I'll be
scouring TKD for more evidence of obscure theories and radical new
functions of Klingon. I just sorta fell into the idea of the reciprocals.
Oh, sorry, I ran a little long. My mind likes to wonder and even gets
Another question: Concerning what Qanqor commented about the vaguene
of functiolingon question words, i.e., tha'Iv and nuq follow
somewhat different rules than other nouns. Well, which of these would
seem more appropriate?:
- ghorgh 'oHpu' may'
- ghorgh qaSpu' may'
Guido#1 ---
