tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 21 08:11:45 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIlIH(')egh, etc.
>Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 22:16:59 -0800
>From: [email protected]
>In a message dated 95-11-15 07:03:00 EST, you write:
>>ghIH 'Iw 'ej *sex-appeal* lughajbe' lomDu'
>>
>>
>Question from peHruS:
>I've seen before {lommey}, not {lomDu'}. Should the body part suffix be
>affixed to corpses?
This has been talked about here before. I'm nearly positive "?lompu'" is
wrong, but I don't think "lomDu'" is necessarily bad. It may be a little
poetic, but it's a valid way of looking at things: corpses are parts of
bodies: perhaps "parts" in the same sense that a set is a subset (an
improper subset) of itself. I kind of like it, if for no other reason than
we get to use the little-used "-Du'" a little more. But I wouldn't fault
anyone for using "lommey".
~mark