[661] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: nuqneH
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri Apr 23 03:01:19 1993
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: Captain Krankor <krankor@codex.prds.cdx.mot.com>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 93 00:52:34 -0400
Regarding nachHegh's posted corrections:
Boy, I'm not sure how I lost track of that one, I was meaning to comment on
it, and it seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle. The raison d'etre of
having just Grammarians do corrections was to simply avoid the case of 12
posted responses to the same error; in the kind of situation which arose, namel
y
nobody correcting something, then, yes, it's perfectly fine for anybody else
to jump in.
Note also that it is not the policy to correct each and every error (or we'll
be swamped {{:-) but to try and concentrate on those that seem to be errors
of understanding, rather than oversights and slip-ups where the person seems
to know better. Also, I tend to try to judge whether an error correction is
likely to be of interest to the whole group or not; I will oftimes take correct
ions
off line and do them by private mail.
But in this case, yes, the lack of correction was simply a slip up; it fell
through the cracks. I think I thought I sent mail asking the writer for the
intended English (I often do this before attempting to correct), but I may not
even have actually done that. In fact, I'm sure I thought I did that, because
as I look at it now, I completely don't feel I understand what he was trying to
say. However, nachHegh has done a good job addressing it, so I'll just add
one more comment.
Despite nachHegh's comment, the first two sentences are not fine. The second
one is fine, the first is in error (or, at least, almost certainly does not mea
n
what the author intended). The sentence was:
Doug vIpong.
This translates to: I name him Doug. or: I call him Doug. Call who Doug?
I'm fairly sure this was meant to be self-referential: I call myself Doug. If
so, then it should be: Doug jIpong'egh.
Or, it could be that a more passive voice was desired: I am called Doug
(One calls me Doug), in which case it would be: Doug vIponglu'.
Eli: I think we need something in the FAQ about how to identify your name. It
seems we've seen much confusion amongst new posters about this. Since its the
first problem many people seem to hit, we might as well help them out with it
from the start.
--Krankor
