tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 22 12:22:04 2010
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: latlh 'e'nalpu'
- From: "Michael Roney, Jr. PKT" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: latlh 'e'nalpu'
- Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:19:02 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :reply-to:subject:in-reply-to:x-mailer:mime-version:content-type; bh=VduALPH5YKhaGDu44j4+iHieZooB7PFALUfdTwQtNLI=; b=bGX9aJdG0IDJ5K882/wrjTlhtFyqvcf+5pSvgaNA5LkSnrj+V6uivReti/LxhKG+MH rmtJFvFLJJsZ6ldklaLXkha0FFmzlQvLyr34qocMJeuCxidHbwmZVrU0NkFSQ45bUJ6/ ZdUqQdRybxgsgZC4WgMCn22rdULrFXAndKk1o=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:reply-to:subject:in-reply-to:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; b=hLVYPwL7dKcQcVhoHbzrh6yCMOZGvO8lg/qfRAgCAtLd2kfeTS9I0e8fXYcRMTUi5K xkoxwTXzQiA6MZ2jfZRMgg9FYEOTkmUAUwjMocjYAQpqneRm0KSdozWj+WjFEHBqLu5R 9p1xuR8NR+FIZWR8/OanuC+E9/LUVVbw0TV7w=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]> 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