[581] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: mu' vInej
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri Apr 16 16:46:59 1993
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: Mark_Nudelman@go.com
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: 16 Apr 93 10:27
marqem writes:
> "chechwI'" is good, but it's very general, meaning 'drunk-maker,
> intoxicant'.
Perhaps I don't understand the -wI' suffix. Since chech means
"be drunk", I would have thought chechwI' meant "thing which
is drunk, drunkard". (When I read d'Armond's original message,
I thought he was asking for a word for jupDaj, not for "beer"!)
I would have used chechmoHwI' for "intoxicant". What then would
chechghach mean? This gets us back into the nominalization argument.
--nachHegh
Mark_Nudelman@go.com
