tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 09 08:06:25 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

Alan Anderson ([email protected])

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: [KLBC] RE: *be'nI'nal
• Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 11:06:38 -0400
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <20060409000948.VWPS11322.ibm59aec.bellsouth.net@no1> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

ja' Thorwald Peeters:

> But the question that remains is: how *do* you say "sister-in-law"
>
>  be'nal lodnI'wI'?

"Wife's my brother"?  The possessive {-wI'} is either misplaced or  
superfluous, and unless you meant brother-in-law, the word order is  
backwards.

A sister-in-law could be a couple of things.  You might mean  
"brother's wife" {loDnI' be'nal} or "wife's/husband's sister" {be'nal/ 
loDnal be'nI'}.  But unless you absolutely need to describe the  
precise relationship, I think the best rendition in Klingon would be  
simply {'e'nal}.

-- ghunchu'wI'

• 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: qep'a' (was Re: On a more humerous note)
• Next by Date: Re: [KLBC] RE: *be'nI'nal
• Previous by thread: [KLBC] Da'? (was RE: *be'nI'nal)
• Next by thread: Re: *be'nI'nal
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level