tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 29 10:41:57 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 13:40:23 -0500
- Organization: Client/Server Labs
- Priority: normal
On 29 Jan 96 at 10:21, 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".
Yes, that *is* on both pages. But now, I'm *really* confused,
because I thought the discussion was about the meaning "thing which
is", not "one that is". Did I misread the question?
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