[88459] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: monastery
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Terrence Donnelly)
Tue Dec 21 17:43:05 2010
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 14:38:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Terrence Donnelly <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <FBCA8C5A-A13C-4F6A-9B70-87FCDEABECE6@gmail.com>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
This whole controversy is pretty much your own creation. I've never in my life known "monastery" to refer to anything except a building. I personally would not need any more clarification from him to understand {ghIn} in the same way. You're the one who brought up whether it refers to groups. Why should he need to clarify a statement he didn't actually make?
-- ter'eS
--- On Tue, 12/21/10, 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: Tuesday, December 21, 2010, 4:02 PM
> Listen to yourself. "I feel that
> Okrand was trying to suggest..." Let's just ask the man,
> okay? Everything else is presumption.
>
> He should speak directly, like a Klingon. We shouldn't need
> a spiritual medium to interpret his intent. We're not a New
> Age commune. We seek to speak the warrior's tongue. I don't
> think it is asking too much for a clear definition for a
> word.
>
> We can say whatever we like in terms of what each of us
> personally WANTS the word to mean, but that doesn't tell us
> what Okrand defines the word to be. If he gives us a
> definition that is so vague and broken that we can't agree
> on whether we are talking about people or buildings, then he
> should want to speak to us more clearly about his intent
> instead of having us argue for weeks about it with no
> authority to declare the actual meaning of the word.
>
> All I want is for him to have the opportunity to be clear.
> This is a language, after all. It's not a debate contest. I
> wish we were less concerned about who wins the argument
> about what a word means than we are about how to speak
> clearly so that all who know the language can understand
> us.
>
> There is only one authority on this language. Let him
> speak.
>
> pItlh.
> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
>
>
>
> On Dec 21, 2010, at 2:08 PM, qurgh lungqIj wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Seruq <seruq@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
> > I see ghIn as a vague mixture of the people, and the
> building in which they
> >> live/gather, with ...
> >> wait for it ... our popular word ... CONTEXT
> clarifying which is being
> >> referred to.
> >>
> >>
> > A building is only a monastery if there is a group of
> people performing
> > monastic activity in it (or people have performed
> monastic activity there
> > for so long the label has become permanent).
> >
> > I feel that Okrand was trying to suggest that anywhere
> can be ghIn, as long
> > as there is a "religious" community residing there.
> ghIn'a' would be ghIn
> > that have been around for so long that even if there
> is no one there it's
> > still known for being ghIn. ghInHom could therefore be
> a ghIn formed in the
> > backyard shed by a small group of people, possibly for
> the purpose of one
> > day becoming ghIn.
> >
> > At least that's how I interpret his words.
> >
> > I put "religious" in quotes because I think the term
> is very broad for
> > Klingons. Everything from worshiping deities to
> eastern martial arts
> > training would be considered religious to them.
> >
> > qurgh
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
