[Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: wovmoHwI'

[qunnoQ HoD]

>  To keep you (or in the case of publicly searchable records, others) from
using the wrong word, you add a note.
    qurgh went with "lamp".
    De'vID went with "device".

ok,this is a perfect explanation. now,i understand. thanks

> Since we are generally using databases for this function, I’d just like
to point out that we can put personal annotations into fields OTHER than
the definition

i believe this would be great,especially for beginners who struggle to
figure out how things work ; furthermore it would help people avoid the
pitfall of learning something "corrupt",which would be of great difficulty
to "unlearn" later on. I had a teacher in university,who would constantly
remind us that "the human brain has no trouble learning something new,no
matter how difficult it may be. still,it has the greatest trouble of
changing something it has already learned".

qunnoQ

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:46 PM, lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh <
lojmitti7wi7nuv at gmail.com> wrote:

> Since we are generally using databases for this function, I’d just like to
> point out that we can put personal annotations into fields OTHER than the
> definition, and we’ll be less likely to corrupt the data. Normal
> dictionaries site sources. It’s the only way to resolve eventual arguments
> about definitions for a canon-based language.
>
> Look in the archives for the origin of the Klingon word for “armpit”, if
> you want to know why this is important.
>
> lojmIt tI’wI’ nuv ‘utlh
> Door Repair Guy, Retired Honorably
>
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2015, at 10:27 AM, Michael Roney, Jr. <nahqun at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:12 AM, qurgh lungqIj <qurgh at wizage.net> wrote:
>
> > The canon is the same for everyone, although everyone's interpretations
> of them might not be identical.
> >
>
> I think there's a divide on whether or not the paq'batlh is canon. Perhaps
> even Talk Now.
> Besides those, I think we're all on the same page.
>
> >There's also the possibility of errors or omissions in dictionaries
> people compile themselves due to simple human error or oversight. I know my
> dictionary has some errors in it >that I might never find, such is the
> downside of compiling it oneself without having others check it.
> >
>
> That's the upside to using your dictionary for the WOTD, you get to slowly
> share it with the masses and if there's an error or omission, they'll be
> quick to point it out.
> WRT {wovmoHwI'} I think De'vID 's notation of "device" works a bit better
> than "lamp" simply because "device" sounds more informative and "lamp"
> seems too restrictive.
>
>
> ~naHQun
>
>
> --
> ~Michael Roney, Jr.
> Freelance Translator
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151024/350d7368/attachment.html>