|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120309104758.0573ac18@flyingstart.ca>
From: "ghunchu'wI' 'utlh" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 14:55:36 -0500
To: Klingon language email discussion forum <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> Here are some *first impressions* of items that haven't already been disc=
ussed earlier.
I had pretty much the same reaction as Qov. A great many of the listed
"new definitions" seem to be attempts to match the English and Klingon
word for word. If you consider the underlying meaning, the established
definitions meet the needs of the translation perfectly.
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Qov <robyn@flyingstart.ca> wrote:
>> rIt =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 summon (v) =A0[new]
>
> Love it, so useful. I also love that it's similar enough to rI' that I can
> imagine a common etymology.
I'm sure everyone would understand {rItHa'} as "dismiss", though I'm
not going to put it in my dictionary database. It does make me wonder
what {rI'Ha'} could mean.
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |