tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 29 08:27:24 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
re: wI'
- From: "Garrett Michael Hayes" <[email protected]>
- Subject: re: wI'
- Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 11:26:17 -0500
- Organization: Client/Server Labs
- Priority: normal
On 29 Jan 96 at 6:12, David Barron wrote:
> >
> > Could someone explain the controversy surrounding the use of -wI'
> > with the intended meaning of "thing which is"? I have read the
> > HolQeD article arguing against it, what's the arguement for it?
>
> It *is* mentioned in TKD but only in the very back of the
> book, page 167. That give is some weight however there is no
> other mention of this usage in TKD nor any other Okrand
> canon that I am aware of.
Perhaps your TKD is structured differently than mine, but page 167 is
just the list of verb suffixes, in order of the English translation.
Page 164 is the same list in order of tlhIngan spelling. They *do*
differ in that the list on 164 includes "thing which does" in the
translations, while 167 does not. Is *this* what you are talking
about? Or are you referencing something else entirely?
Garrett Michael Hayes; Client/Server Labs
8601 Dunwoody Place, Suite 332, Atlanta, GA 30350
[email protected], http://www.cslinc.com
770-552-3645 voice, 770-993-4667 fax