Why assume that tradition is formal? Bib overalls and blue jeans are traditional clothing. Tuxedos are formal. Twelve hundred hours is formal. Noon is a much older, more traditional description of midday. Sent from my iPad
On Jul 29, 2020, at 4:59 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
http://klingonska.org/ref/time.html:
The second system is an informal way of answering the question ’arlogh Qoylu’pu’? jIH: The problem here is whether the sentence "The second system is an informal way of answering the question {’arlogh Qoylu’pu’?}", was indeed in HQ, and of course whether it was written by 'oqranD himself.
On the other hand, even if this sentence *is* indeed Ca'Non, one could wonder..
For something to be considered informal, logically something else must exist, something else which is considered to be formal.
If the {'arlogh Qoylu'pu'} existed looong before anything else, then how the jay' can it be considered informal ? How can it be considered informal if there was nothing else to compare it to ?
The more I think of it, the more everything points to the {'arlogh Qoylu'pu'} being the formal/traditional method of telling time.
~ Qa'yIn _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org