tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 29 19:53:19 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -wI'
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: -wI'
- Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 23:54:21 -0500
maSqa' writes:
>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?
As I understand it, the argument *for* "thing which is" boils down
to making a simpler translation for the likes of "rare thing" --
We could say {qubwI'} instead of {qubbogh Doch}. TKD describes {-wI'}
using "one who is" on pages 164 and 167; "one who does" on pages 19,
20, 44, 164, and 167; and "thing which does" on pages 19, 20, 44, and
164. There's no mention of "thing which is," and I didn't see any
examples of "thing which is" *or* "one who is."
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj