[88481] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: latlh 'e'nalpu'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Roney, Jr. PKT)
Wed Dec 22 15:32:52 2010
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:19:02 -0500
From: "Michael Roney, Jr. PKT" <nahqun@gmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <4D125B94.3040901@web.de>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
I shall now stop using {be'nI'nal}.
And I can now officially fill in the blanks on my family relationship chart.
Dunqu'!
~naHQun
~Michael Roney, Jr.
Professional Klingon Translator
webOS Developer
Sent from my Palm Pre
On Dec 22, 2010 15:14, Lieven Litaer <lieven.litaer@web.de> wrote:
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
