[88390] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: latlh mu' chu'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (R Fenwick)
Tue Dec 7 05:30:29 2010
From: R Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 20:18:17 +1000
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
QInvamDaq Quvar HIjwI' vIDaqa'.
QeS 'utlh
-----
Am 06.12.2010 16:58, schrieb Felix Malmenbeck:
>> It sounds as if Okrand thought {nagh beQ} would do for any sort
>> of picture/image and didn't understand why people were
>> uncomfortable with it.
Why did he not just tell us? ;-)
> Indeed, while I've always felt that it's strange to refer to a
>computerized image as a nagh beQ, I suppose it's really not much
>stranger than...
Marc Okrand has used a few "antique" words and told us the have a
meaning today. About nagh beQ, he did not. He described it as a
painting, but never as some kind of photo or image.
Anyway, I am happy to have a new word, and I am happy to have a
"precise" word.
PS: it has always bothered me I could not say {naghbeQmey} ;-)
Quvar.
(HablI'wIj DaDamo' qatlho'qu', QeS.)
