[88442] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: monastery
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Terrence Donnelly)
Mon Dec 20 16:25:19 2010
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:18:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Terrence Donnelly <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <A009015B-0E7B-43DC-B833-378D6185492D@gmail.com>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Only quvar could answer for certain, but it sure looked like he was directly quoting an email from Okrand in his original post.
-- ter'eS
--- On Mon, 12/20/10, lojmIt tI'wI' nuv <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: lojmIt tI'wI' nuv <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: monastery
> To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> Date: Monday, December 20, 2010, 2:53 PM
> Was any of this paraphrased, or was
> it all literally text that Okrand wrote? I'm concerned that
> we may have had some dilution of the definition here, shaded
> by interpretation. I really like to see stuff from Okrand as
> raw and uninterpreted as possible, unless the interpretation
> has been reflected back to Okrand and approved by him. It
> would be unfortunate for us to have strong personalities
> here come up with an interpretation that doesn't match
> Okrand's and have us take the inaccurate interpretation as
> if it were vetted perfection.
>
> pItlh.
> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
>
>
>
> On Dec 20, 2010, at 1:01 PM, Terrence Donnelly wrote:
>
> > --- On Sat, 12/18/10, Lieven Litaer <lieven.litaer@web.de>
> wrote:>
> >> <<<<<<
> >> The word for monastery is {ghIn}. This is a
> pretty
> >> general term for a
> >> religious community (and the term "religious"
> could be
> >> interpreted in
> >> various ways as well), so it can be
> modified. A
> >> {ghIn'a'} would be a
> >> pretty important monastery, for example.
> >>>>>>>>
> >
> > I understood this to be a building or complex of
> buildings occupied by a specific group. I really don't think
> "monastery" has any other meaning, and I think his mention
> of {ghIn'a'} as a "pretty important monastery" reinforces
> the idea that he meant an actual building. All of
> Okrand's qualifications I think are his acknowledgement that
> Klingons aren't religious in the usual sense we give the
> term. Even the Borath monks, for example, aren't
> religious aspirants or spiritual seekers as we would
> understand it, but guardians of a tradition of disciplines
> centered on (but not worshipping) Kahles. When the Kahles
> clone appeared, it was confusing, but not blasphemous (could
> you imagine what would happen if someone appeared claiming
> to be the clone of Jesus?). My point is that I think Okrand
> is leaving room for there to be Klingon groups with a
> certain level of discipline and organization that might
> occupy a {ghIn}, but would not be religious by our
> standards.
> >
> > -- ter'eS
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
