[111815] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Why not law'wI'pu' ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Thu Feb 21 14:03:58 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 14:03:55 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CABSTb1dhJq3aWBA-A-nD0ekPZojy5QxHHJeE=x2avYxKv9T01w@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============5652433286962066125==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------6F98BED86CC4F32A03EC6B5D"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------6F98BED86CC4F32A03EC6B5D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 2/21/2019 1:37 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:
> It could be translated as "the many," just as *qanwI'* can be
> translated "the old."
Actually, I want to counter this. *qanwI'* can be translated /the old/
only in the sense that plural suffixes are optional in Klingon, and
*qanwI'pu'* means /the old./ Assuming no dropped plural suffix, *qanwI'*
only means /old one./
TKD is fairly clear on the meaning of *-wI',* and it's always explained
as /thing which does/ or /one who does,/ and even once as /thing which
is/ (we have since gotten canon for /one who is/). Nowhere is it
explained as /things which do//, //those who do, things which are/ or
/those who are./
I agree that it's a fine point, but I don't think it's rigid so much as
careful not to stray beyond what we know *-wI'* does.
Again, I'm not saying that the language is necessarily this specific,
just that the evidence we actually have seems to point this way. Okrand
could easily clarify with, "Oh, sure, *law'wI'pu'* means /the many,/"
and there'd be no problem. You just can't get there with what we have
now without making an assumption.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------6F98BED86CC4F32A03EC6B5D
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<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 2/21/2019 1:37 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABSTb1dhJq3aWBA-A-nD0ekPZojy5QxHHJeE=x2avYxKv9T01w@mail.gmail.com">It
could be translated as "the many," just as <b>qanwI'</b> can be
translated "the old."</blockquote>
<p>Actually, I want to counter this. <b>qanwI'</b> can be
translated <i>the old</i> only in the sense that plural suffixes
are optional in Klingon, and <b>qanwI'pu'</b> means <i>the old.</i>
Assuming no dropped plural suffix, <b>qanwI'</b> only means <i>old
one.</i></p>
<p>TKD is fairly clear on the meaning of <b>-wI',</b> and it's
always explained as <i>thing which does</i> or <i>one who does,</i>
and even once as <i>thing which is</i> (we have since gotten
canon for <i>one who is</i>). Nowhere is it explained as <i>things
which do</i><i>, </i><i>those who do, things which are</i> or <i>those
who are.</i></p>
<p>I agree that it's a fine point, but I don't think it's rigid so
much as careful not to stray beyond what we know <b>-wI'</b>
does.</p>
<p>Again, I'm not saying that the language is necessarily this
specific, just that the evidence we actually have seems to point
this way. Okrand could easily clarify with, "Oh, sure, <b>law'wI'pu'</b>
means <i>the many,</i>" and there'd be no problem. You just can't
get there with what we have now without making an assumption.<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>
--------------6F98BED86CC4F32A03EC6B5D--
--===============5652433286962066125==
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
--===============5652433286962066125==--
