[88486] in tlhIngan-Hol
RE: latlh 'e'nalpu'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Boozer)
Thu Dec 23 10:14:52 2010
From: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 09:08:11 -0600
In-Reply-To: <C305E6BD33E2654DAE1F8F403247B6A60218B0550099@EVS02.ad.uchicago.edu>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Marc Okrand (via Quvar) wrote:
>> 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."
>>
Voragh:
> {'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"
I've seen *{SoSnal} and *{vavnal} used for mother-in-law and father-in-law. Until Maltz says otherwise, we should probably "just describe the relationship" as {loDnal SoS}, {be'nal vav}, etc.
The bound morpheme {-nal} is only used (so far) on {be'nal} wife, {loDnal} husband, {'IrneHnal/tennuSnal} uncles by marriage, and {'e'mamnal/me'nal} aunts by marriage.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
