Re: OT: Ohm of Borg (Re: OT: Inspiration (was Re: Alphabet)))
|From:||Almaran Dungeonmaster <dungeonmaster@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, November 6, 2001, 8:28|
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Constructed Languages List
> [mailto:CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU]Namens H. S. Teoh
> Verzonden: dinsdag 6 november 2001 2:22
> Aan: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU
> Onderwerp: Re: Ohm of Borg (Re: OT: Inspiration (was Re: Alphabet)))
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 08:18:28AM +0100, Almaran Dungeonmaster wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 07:49:01PM -0800, Yoon Ha Lee wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > I am Ohm of Borg. Resistance is Voltage over Current.
> > >
> > > ROTFL!!!
> > >
> > > Perhaps it's better phrased (in stereotypical caveman-speak):
> > > "I, Ohm the Borg. Resistance is Voltage over Current."
> > But the first is more in line with actual Borg speech. They either say
> > "We are the Borg." or in the rare cases where they put forth an
> > "Ï am Locutus of Borg" (Patrick Stewart in a historical episode of TNG).
> > Remember, the Borg are definitely not cavemen... They live in cubes and
> > spheres, and are very wel developed, though somewhat simplistic and
> > extremely pragmatic :-)
> No, no, you missed my intention. I was playing a pun on the word "am".
> "Ohm" can be construed to be a back, open version of "am", you see.
> (Back/open as in the vowel quality :-P) So it's a pun on "I am the
> Borg..." The caveman reference was my way of hinting at the shift in vowel
> value there :-P
Lol... well, that was waaaaay to subtle for me. But neither was my comment
very serious anyway... But what is the ideaa behind the shift from "of" to
"the" then? Or was that just accidental?
Maarten van Beek