tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 31 12:24:29 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -wI'
>
> On 31 Jan 96 at 10:48, Bill Willmerdinger <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > uu> 164. There's no mention of "thing which is," and I didn't see
> > any uu> examples of "thing which is" *or* "one who is."
> >
> > "Thing which is" is given in the suffix chart on page 168. It's the
> > only reference I can find.
>
> That's it! That's the elusive reference we've all been looking for.
> Now unless Okrand made a boo-boo and wants to redefine it, this seems
> like a go ahead to me for words like beQwI' and all the rest.
THis is exactly my point. There is a reference to -wI' on a stative verb for
"one that is" . But does it carry the wieight to to use it as chISwI' for
"white man"?
>
> maSqa'
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.