tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 09 08:26:51 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [KLBC] RE: *be'nI'nal
- From: Shane MiQogh <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: [KLBC] RE: *be'nI'nal
- Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 08:26:39 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Bl9Cf1zBVv/t7qY85Mc6xKE9DI+Jw9/RbtG3Unx5FzDGFtfT6G+law1pN+Z0IOF9bOaw+xjZV6OUSRdxocg5bdOT05SFIUxrr914LSgFFikhA7tD89uBeiLmWhT9hn8GYijbrW8WfiJqHx8ZtjsIXZ+NyLyKZTKA0OAL33SYGG4= ;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
bI'nal SuvwI' HoH = Kill warrior wife It's OVS not OSV...
Thorwald Peeters <[email protected]> wrote:
>> DloraH 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
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.