tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 08 05:37:03 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: nephew
- From: "QeS 'utlh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: nephew
- Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 22:36:49 +1000
- Bcc:
ghItlhpu' naHQun, ja':
>Would my wife's sister's son be my {tey'} or my {lor}?
Klingon has no words for in-laws, and only furnishes {'e'nal} "someone
related by marriage" to fill this void. The fact that the word-forming
element {-nal} "related by marriage" is so widespread among Klingon kinship
terms makes me think that terms like ?{tey'nal} and ?{lornal} might also be
possible. However, the question then becomes: what would these terms
represent? Since more than one relationship by marriage is implied in such
terms, they become ambiguous.
In short: maSovchu'be'. {{;)
(My two cents' worth: personally, of the two, I'm leaning towards {lor} -
leaving your wife out of the equation, the boy is your sister-in-law's son.
The question then is a simple one: is your sister-in-law treated the same in
kinship terms as your sister? I see no reason why this shouldn't be the
case, as in English, in which the son of your sister-in-law is just called
your nephew anyway - but then, I'm mapping Terran concepts onto a Klingon
mindset... which is dangerous at the best of times. {{:D)
>Or would I need to recast as:
>be'nalwI' be'nI' puqloD ?
If it were me, I'd make it even simpler and just say {be'nalwI' tey'loD}.
QeS 'utlh
tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pabpo' / Grammarian of the Klingon Language Institute
not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
- Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh
_________________________________________________________________
Find lost friends & family online! Search for free.
http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=389&referral=HM_tagline&URL=http://ninemsn.schoolfriends.com.au