<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt"></span></font></div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt">
<div class="PlainText">ghItlhpu' Hugh, jatlhpu':<br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">> {wI'qIy turwI'Daq} makes it sound like you’re adding the text to the server that</div>
</span></font>
<div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt">
<div class="PlainText">> hosts the wiki and not necessarily to the wiki itself.</div>
</span></font><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt">
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">I tend to agree. As we see not just from <b>qep'a' wejDIchDaq</b>, but also from the classic example
<b>wa' Dol nIvDaq matay'DI' maQap</b> (TKW p.209), -<b>Daq</b> is not so strict in its application that it invalidates a construction like
<b>wI'qIyDaq vIchelta'</b> "I added it into the Wiki"; as Quvar notes, a virtual location like a wiki is no less a location. And since that's the case,<font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt"> unless the sense is that you specifically added it to the server
and not the wiki,</span></font> adding <b>turwI'</b> to the sentence adds nothing in terms of useful information, so it can safely be left out here. (Including it is not really
<i>wrong</i> per se, but unless you're specifically talking about the server rather than the wiki, adding it sounds odd: not unlike going to a
<b>tach</b> and asking for a <b>baS HIvje'</b> of bloodwine. Unless you have a particular reason for wanting a metal cup, it's extraneous information that isn't relevant to the discussion. For purely pragmatic reasons I think Grice's maxims of relevance and
quantity, at least, would hold for Klingons as well.)</div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">(poD vay')</div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">taH:<br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">> So while I appreciate that you’re trying to follow a rule about limiting the</div>
<div class="PlainText">> use of {-Daq} to actual locations, I think you should be aware that going<br>
> out of the way to follow that rule can have unintended consequences on</div>
<div class="PlainText">> how your words are understood.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">jangpu' mayqel, jatlh:<br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">> This is the most wrong and ridiculous reasoning I have ever read in<br>
> the 3,5 years I'm in this list.</div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">toH, nom chungpu' wanI'vetlh. o.O<font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt"></span></font></div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">Look, all Hugh is saying is nothing more than this: <u>if</u>
<b>wI'qIyDaq vIchelta'</b> is wrong (as you claim) because -<b>Daq</b> must refer to a concrete physical location and can't refer to data in a virtual location,
<u>then</u> the unavoidable implication is that -<b>Daq</b> must also refer to a concrete physical location elsewhere - such as in
<b>wI'qIy turwI'Daq vIchelta'</b>. He's not saying that <i>he</i> believes either of those things is true. He's just saying that if
<i>you</i> claim a particular meaning for the one, then for the sake of logical consistency, it will affect how you should interpret the other, or your argument falls apart. DaH Dayaj'a'?<br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">taH:<br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">> You're going to extremes to justify your initial opinion which was wrong.</div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">As I said above, for my part I see no problem with Hugh's earlier statement that
<b>wI'qIyDaq</b> alone is sufficient, in view of other canonical examples that indicate a virtual location is still quite happily conceptualised as a location by Klingons for the purposes of the local Type 5 suffixes.<br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt">
<div>taH:</div>
<div>> <span>I'm dead certain, that if we asked 100 people, noone would understand<br>
</span><span>> that the words are added to the wiki server and not to the wiki.</span><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In context they probably wouldn't. But the only thing that would allow them to do that would be context, which allows the intended meaning to be extracted from it. And in fact, if anything adding
<b>turwI'</b> only <i>adds</i> ambiguity (by adding extraneous information) rather than removing from it.<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">ghItlhpu' je Hugh, jatlh:</div>
<div class="PlainText">> Now it’s possible that the studiers of the Klingon language were speaking</div>
<div class="PlainText">> in the building where the third great meeting occurred, but not during the</div>
<div class="PlainText">> meeting itself.<br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">jangqa'pu' mayqel, jatlh:<br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">> Okrand used the phrase you're referring to, and it is pretty clear<br>
> what he meant. Again, you're twisting everything on your attempt to<br>
> prove your point.</div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">What Hugh is doing here is nothing more than trying to interpret the canon examples using the very criteria that you are arguing forbids
<b>wI'qIyDaq</b>. Logicians call it a <i>reductio ad absurdum</i>; it's a technique for examining an argument by working through the logical consequences of the argument being true. (And if anything he's trying to give you the benefit of the doubt in the argument,
admitting that the semantics of the <b>qep'a' wejDIchDaq</b> example are also interpretable within the narrow semantics you're arguing for.)<br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">taH:<br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">> Since you're relatively new in this language, I'll give you an advice.</div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">HollIj wa'DIch 'oHbe'pu'mo' DIvI' Hol'e', mayqel, qeS qanob je jIH: nguqlaw' naDev mu'mey'e' Daqonpu'bogh, 'ej loQ tIchlaw'. 'eDjenna' SoH 'e' vIHonchu'. vaj 'eDjen yIDaQo'.<br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
(poD vay')</span></font><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt">
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">taH:<br>
> And as far as the {chel} is concerned.. You're trying to force on this<br>
> verb, a very limited context, which Ca'Non so far hasn't ever done.</div>
<div class="PlainText"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt"></span></font></div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">FWIW, the only example we appear to have of <b>chel</b> in a canonical text is this one:</div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText"><b>HoSDaq ghob luchel quv ghajbogh tlhInganpu'lI'</b></div>
<div class="PlainText">"your Klingons with Honor add Integrity to Strength" (<i>HolQeD</i> 9:4, p.16)<br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">Which, by the way, is another clean example showing that the interpretation of -<b>Daq</b> as referring only to a physical, real, concrete, tangible, atoms-and-energy object is somewhat too narrow, and if anything stands in support of
Hugh's usage.<br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">QeS 'utlh<br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt"></span></font></div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>