> Why? What reason is there to believe that

> the "serpent" in the definition of {ghargh} 

> means anything other than that a serpent

> would be referred to generically as a 

> {ghargh} in Klingon?

Let me ask you.

If I say {muSujpu' ghargh mIllogh}, what am I saying ?

The picture of a serpent disturbed me, or the picture of a worm disturbed me ?

Since {ghargh} can mean both, how could someone say that I don't need to specify further ?

There is a line in matthew, where jesus says something like (I don't have the original text at hand now):

"who of you, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a serpent ?"

Suppose I wrote:

{‘ej ghotI’ HevmeH wa’ nuv puqloD, tlhobchugh puqvam, puqvamvaD ghargh nob vay’ ?}

Can't the reader here assume that the {ghargh} could mean "worm" instead ?

Now, don't tell me "it wouldn't make for a big difference in meaning", or "to a klingon it would be the same".

Because it would make a *major* difference in meaning, and klingons as well as their understanding of things, can burn in hell for all I care.

De'vID:

> Does anyone else on the mailing list have

> any reservation about using {ghargh} to 

> mean "serpent"? 

You misunderstood me. I'm not saying {ghargh} can't be used to mean "serpent". I *am* saying though, that since it can mean worm too, one needs to specify what he's talking about.

~ ncnccn