[111417] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] male female baby
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Fri Oct 6 04:11:06 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 10:42:34 -0400
In-Reply-To: <c62e3352-8789-3a0d-fd7c-f50718bc5481@gmx.de>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============6508146037760041821==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------7AA097E1D61229F292182B92"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------7AA097E1D61229F292182B92
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 10/3/2017 10:37 AM, Lieven wrote:
> Am 03.10.2017 um 15:57 schrieb André Müller:
>> My thoughts on this: We say {puqloD} and {puqbe'}, which are
>> literally 'childman' and 'childwoman'. So I think {ghu loD} is more
>> logical.
>
> In addition, we also have the {qItbe'} a female kind of guineafowl.
>
> Cousins are {lorbe'} and {lorloD}, and {tey'be'} and {tey'loD}.
>
> This might confirm that the gender follows the type it odifies. Having
> {be'nal} and {loDnal}, doe not count by the way, beause here, all the
> nal-ed family memebers end with {-nal}.
>
> But what if Klingons do not make a difference with babies? We don't do
> that in English either, do we?
>
> To avoid the problem, I would make this two phrases:
> {ghu vIlegh. loD ghaH.}
That implies to my mind that the baby is a man. Say this instead: *ghu
vIlegh; loDHom ghaH.*
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------7AA097E1D61229F292182B92
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/3/2017 10:37 AM, Lieven wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c62e3352-8789-3a0d-fd7c-f50718bc5481@gmx.de">Am
03.10.2017 um 15:57 schrieb André Müller:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">My thoughts on
this: We say {puqloD} and {puqbe'}, which are literally
'childman' and 'childwoman'. So I think {ghu loD} is more
logical.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
In addition, we also have the {qItbe'} a female kind of
guineafowl.
<br>
<br>
Cousins are {lorbe'} and {lorloD}, and {tey'be'} and {tey'loD}.
<br>
<br>
This might confirm that the gender follows the type it odifies.
Having {be'nal} and {loDnal}, doe not count by the way, beause
here, all the nal-ed family memebers end with {-nal}.
<br>
<br>
But what if Klingons do not make a difference with babies? We
don't do that in English either, do we?
<br>
<br>
To avoid the problem, I would make this two phrases:
<br>
{ghu vIlegh. loD ghaH.}
</blockquote>
<p>That implies to my mind that the baby is a man. Say this instead:
<b>ghu vIlegh; loDHom ghaH.</b><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------7AA097E1D61229F292182B92--
--===============6508146037760041821==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============6508146037760041821==--
