tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 31 16:16:12 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
A changed vote on -wI'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: A changed vote on -wI'
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 19:15:39 +73900 (EST)
Having just spoken out against "thing which is" and then had
pointed out the reference on page 168 in TKD, I change my vote.
Okrand can say it was a mistake or a misunderstanding in his
notes from Maltz, and we can return to the more conservative
interpretation, but it really looks like {HabwI'} can mean,
"Thing which is smooth". {chISwI'} can mean "one who is white".
Meanwhile, this does not seem to be the primary role of this
suffix and when one is about to use such a term, recognize that
your ability to construct such a word will not necessary lead
to others being able to understand them. If you point to a pile
of dilythium crystals and say, {HabwI' vIneH}, then it makes a
lot of sense. If you are a witness to a murder pointing to a
lineup of suspects including one albino, then {jupwI' HoHpu'
chISwI'} similarly makes sense. Meanwhile, without this kind of
rich context, neither of these terms would mean much to anybody.
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |