tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 22 12:14:02 2010

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

latlh 'e'nalpu'

Lieven Litaer ([email protected])

• From: Lieven Litaer <[email protected]>
• Subject: latlh 'e'nalpu'
• Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 21:12:04 +0100
• In-reply-to: <C305E6BD33E2654DAE1F8F403247B6A60218AEBD4DF8@EVS02.ad.uchicago.edu>
• References: <[email protected]> <C305E6BD33E2654DAE1F8F403247B6A60218AEBD4DF8@EVS02.ad.uchicago.edu>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; de; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7

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

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: latlh 'e'nalpu'
    • From: "Michael Roney, Jr. PKT" <[email protected]>
  • RE: latlh 'e'nalpu'
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: monastery
    • From: R Fenwick <[email protected]>
  • RE: monastery
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Healthy debate
• Next by Date: Re: Healthy debate
• Previous by thread: RE: monastery
• Next by thread: Re: latlh 'e'nalpu'
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level