[3105] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: vay'mey vItlhob
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Thu Feb 10 10:38:54 1994
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 09:22:42 EST
charghwI' responds to Guido:
> Subject: vay'mey vItlhob
>
> {matlhutlh 'ej maSop wIneH}
> {matlhutlh 'ej maSop DIneH}...
Or you could escape the problem with {matlhutlh wIneH 'ej maSop wIneH}
if you really think the first sentence is ambiguous...
> Also, I have a pet peeve about the way people have been using {Hech}. Look
it up, it means "intend, mean to." But all too often I've seen it used as
>"mean" as in "equal in semantic value."
What about {rap}?
> Example: {"surgery" Hech "Haq"}. But this is incorrect.
"surgery" "Haq" je rap.
> Also, I found {Haq} in the main body of TKD to mean "surgery (n)," and in
> the addendum, we have {HaqwI'} for "surgeon." Does this mean we could get
> away with using {Haq} for "perform surgery?"
ghobe'. jontaHbogh ghaH jonwI' je rapbe'. wot 'oH "Haq" jatlhbe'chugh
"Okrand" vaj maHvaD wot 'oHbe' "Haq".
charghwI'
