tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 30 09:06:59 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
That nagging -wI`
- From: David Barron <[email protected]>
- Subject: That nagging -wI`
- Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 10:06:57 -0700 (MST)
> 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."
toH! DaH meq yap wIghajmo' *Okrand* wIyu'nIS. 'ach HuD jen ghaHtaH
*Okrand*oy 'ej pIj wIyu'DI' jangQo'. wejpuH.
> -- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
david
aka DaraQ
---
* OFFLINE 1.58 * boltaH tera'nganpu' che'taHvIS tlhInganpu'