[94936] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] "Containment field"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (De'vID)
Thu Nov 1 14:47:02 2012
In-Reply-To: <ACF6622D959A8842A81E4471BA56A7E001F03128@xm-mbx-04-prod.ad.uchicago.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 11:46:40 -0700
From: "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
> Fiat Knox:
>> Damn my memory. Has the term "containment field" turned
>> up in canon? Skybox BoP card maybe?
Voragh:
> Today's WOTD suggests *{weghmeH HoSchem} "confinement forcefield"
{HoSchem} is "energy field", {Surchem} is "force field". Correct me
if I'm wrong, but I think the "invisible wall"-type thingies in Star
Trek are the latter ("Seal off deck 8 with a force field!"), whereas
the former is something potentially dangerous ("Captain, I detect an
energy field emitted from the wreck of that spaceship.").
Voragh:
> used to confine something inside it - i.e. prevent something from escaping or leaving - not merely contain or have something inside.
What exactly is being contained here? Is it a substance or a person
(sentient being)? If the latter, I'd use {Sev} "contain (an enemy)"
rather than {wegh}, e.g., {SevmeH Surchem}. I think Klingons would
make the distinction between containing something inanimate or neutral
vs. containing something sentient and/or potentially hostile.
--
De'vID
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
