tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 11 15:43:17 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: HolQeD 3.4. -wI'
- From: David Barron <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: HolQeD 3.4. -wI'
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 16:43:13 -0700 (MST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "David E G Sturm" at Jan 11, 95 09:22:22 am
>
> On Tue, 10 Jan 1995, David Barron wrote:
> > I would like your opinion on Prochel's proclaimation that -wI'
> > can be added to a verb to mean "one who is" as in HeghwI' "dead man".
> >
> > Do you feel this is acceptable tlhIngan Hol?
> >
> > tlhIngan Hol: ~markDaq charghwI'Daq, chay' Qap "-wI'"?
> > wot HochvaD -wI' chellaH vay'?
>
> Dave Sturm feels that it is *acceptable* usage of >-wI'<. >-wI'< seems to
> be clearly defined as "one who verbs" or "that which verbs". I'd contend
> that based on >pujwI'< "weakling" being listed by itself in TKD is enough
> to confirm Mr. Proechel's conclusion. I would say that his >*chISwI'< is
> a better example, as I tend to agree with his comment that some may feel
> >HeghwI'< would literally mean "one who dies" or "one who is dying". Of
> course to a Klingon, dying is equivalent to being dead. It's the
> honorable thing to do. :-)
>
My main concern is with putting -wI' on stative verbs like / chISwI' / to
mean "white person".
Yes, Prochel is correct in saying that the list of Klingon affixes at the
end of TKD says / -wI' / can mean "one who is." But I would think this
MIGHT be an oversight on Okrands part. *OR* it is an oversight that
Okrand didnt mention it when describing / -wI' / in 4.1.9 and 3.2.2.
Either way I want to be certain.
This could be where I ask our High Priest to go to the Moutain once again
and get a divine revelation.
Lawrence, that Okrand Clarification List is starting to grow.
~mark, charghwI' chay' bonoH?
> >tlhIngan Hol<
> >//luq// ja' qembeltaS<
>