[88479] in tlhIngan-Hol
latlh 'e'nalpu'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lieven Litaer)
Wed Dec 22 15:16:50 2010
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 21:12:04 +0100
From: Lieven Litaer <lieven.litaer@web.de>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <C305E6BD33E2654DAE1F8F403247B6A60218AEBD4DF8@EVS02.ad.uchicago.edu>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Okay, now that we have agreed on what {ghIn} might mean, it's time for
the next bit of Marc Okrand's email:
There was another question about whether {loDnI'nal} and {be'nI'nal}
could be "brother-in-law" and "sister-in-law." Maltz said he didn't
think there were specific words for these concepts. He said to just
describe the relationship: {loDnI' loDnal} and {be'nI' loDnal} for
"brother-in-law" and {loDnI' be'nal} and {be'nI' be'nal} for
"sister-in-law." He said you could even say things like {be'nal loDnI'
be'nal} "wife's brother's wife." But he preferred to call all these
people {'e'nalpu'} "people who married into the family."
(Marc Okrand's Email of November 15th, 2010)
Quvar.
www.qepHom.de
