[88483] in tlhIngan-Hol
RE: latlh 'e'nalpu'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Boozer)
Wed Dec 22 15:54:29 2010
From: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:48:28 -0600
In-Reply-To: <4D125B94.3040901@web.de>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
{'e'nal} someone who married into the family (i.e. an "in-law") (n)
Introduced in HolQeD 9.3:
{'e'nal} ... does not specify the exact relationship"
Hmmm... I hope this wasn't a pun on "anal"! (How does Okrand get along with his own {'e'nalpu'}?)
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
Quvar 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)
