tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 16 13:53:32 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: HolQeD 3.4. -wI'
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: HolQeD 3.4. -wI'
- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 16:53:26 -0500
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> (message from David E G Sturm on Thu, 12 Jan 1995 09:15:06 -0500)
>Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 09:15:06 -0500
>Originator: [email protected]
>From: David E G Sturm <[email protected]>
>{Since Mr Proechel doesn't have net access, for the sake of debate, I
>counter some arguments made....}
>On Wed, 11 Jan 1995, William H. Martin wrote:
>> According to David Barron:
>> >
>> > ~marc, charghwI',
>> > 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".
>>
>> He also mentioned Heghpu'wI', which struck me as MUCH better.
>> To me, HeghwI' means "one who dies", which doesn't tell you
>> much since all of us fit that description.
>As happens on this beauteous list, I had an epiphany.... >HeghwI'< would
>seem to be the noun meaning "mortal".... Thus "immortals" might be
>written as >Heghbe'wI'pu'<..... And the undead would clearly be aptly
>described as >HeghHa'wI'pu'<, since they kind of die the wrong way. :-)
Uuuuuuuuuh, if you want "mortals", what is wrong with "jubbe'wI'"? And
immortals would be "jubwI'", qar'a'? HeghHa'wI' for undead isn't bad.
It's not immediately understandable, though... a hindsight-word.
~mark