tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 29 10:19:03 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: wI'
- From: David Barron <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: wI'
- Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 11:19:00 -0700 (MST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Garrett Michael Hayes" at Jan 29, 96 08:29:53 am
>
> 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?
Well, In *my* TKD on both those pages it does say that -wI'
can mean "one that is".
>
> Garrett Michael Hayes; Client/Server Labs
david
--
David Barron || lup Hoch yIyInqu'
Klingon Language Postal Course || qaStaHvIS wa' lup
P.O. Box 37, Eagle ID 83616 || yInpu' wa'netlh yInmey
It's FREE! Send Self-Addressed Stamped Envelope. Not available by E-mail!
E-mail [email protected] Finger me for more details.