tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 10 20:57:42 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: mangpu' or negh?
- From: Shane MiQogh <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: mangpu' or negh?
- Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:57:27 -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=KWP9vfNZHGIJK5Jseu4s85PHarfFVjWmUjhkIxzcP5/BCyENBCdxZDaYMiKV15x5RXdiabjhsFQiOSjHQBWvfx6RW8m23sqqXBUe/pRzbtWUNWZchmC2If6kMZ6cifUqoCtmmVzMXTjjngLYSpUOhSr3/YLea/EfWT3VTH8xnys= ;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
Aye, as TKD states. Theoretically, that would mean -pu' insinuates ordered, but since something is non living, it can't be ordered to klingon. Therefor, mey for non linguals and body parts.
Alan Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > I think using {-mey} in this instance would just be considered
> insulting:
> {mangmey} "the incapable-of-language soldiers".
You're thinking of the use of a "nonspeaking" possessive suffix where
a "speaking" one is called for. Using the "nonspeaking" plural on a
speaking entity isn't insulting. All it does is imply a "scattered
about" meaning.
-- ghunchu'wI'
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.