tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 23 07:37:10 2010
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: latlh 'e'nalpu'
I just wrote:
> 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.
Oops... and in {nalqaD} "mate challenge" (KCD). Okrand's KCD audio tells us that {nal} is not used as a word on its own, although it is also found in {be'nal} wife and {loDnal} husband.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons