tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 09 04:21:29 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: [KLBC] RE: *be'nI'nal

Thorwald Peeters ([email protected])

• From: "Thorwald Peeters" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: [KLBC] RE: *be'nI'nal
• Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 11:20:36 -0000 (GMT)
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <20060409000948.VWPS11322.ibm59aec.bellsouth.net@no1> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
• User-agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.5

<citaat van="Thorwald Peeters">

>> DloraH <[email protected]> wrote:  > How would ya'll interpret the word
>> {be'nI'nal}?

> So we've ascertained it's not to be used unless in jest.
> But the question that remains is: how *do* you say "sister-in-law"

>  be'nal lodnI'wI'?

As a sidenote, I've noticed that "he/she/it" and "they" don't have a
possessive suffix for beings capable of speech. Does this mean they can't
"possess" such beings?

Or is this the same as with the verb prefixes?
{SuvwI' HoH} "the warrior kills" ->
{be'nal suvwI' HoH} "the warrior's wife kills"?

Thorwald Peeters
a.k.a. qa'pIn qorghon puqloD, q'meQ tuq
a.k.a. SoplaHtaHwI'
yuch betleH 'obe' la'quv

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [KLBC] RE: *be'nI'nal
    • From: Shane MiQogh <[email protected]>

• References:
  • RE: *be'nI'nal
    • From: "DloraH" <[email protected]>
  • RE: *be'nI'nal
    • From: Shane MiQogh <[email protected]>
  • [KLBC] RE: *be'nI'nal
    • From: "Thorwald Peeters" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Klingon WOTD: pIl (verb)
• Next by Date: Re: buy' ngop
• Previous by thread: [KLBC] RE: *be'nI'nal
• Next by thread: Re: [KLBC] RE: *be'nI'nal
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level