[93893] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] petaQ!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI' 'utlh)
Tue Jun 26 14:41:34 2012
In-Reply-To: <4FE9F68A.7040401@trimboli.name>
From: "ghunchu'wI' 'utlh" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:40:52 -0400
To: Klingon language email discussion forum <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:
> A footnote in the paq'batlh (pp. 70=961) claims that {petaQ} is derived f=
rom
> {taQ} "be weird" with the plural imperative prefix {pe-}, and that it mea=
ns
> "something like 'weirdo.'"
>
> Do we know whether Okrand had any input on grammatical footnotes that are
> not derived from outside references? Is this derivation "canonical"?
Already discussed briefly on the list last year:
http://stodi.lojban.org/~clsn/webarchives/2011/November/msg00412.html
In short, don't put much stock in the authority of the footnotes.
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
