[tlhIngan Hol] Does porgh refer only to a human body ?

[mayqel qunenoS]

mIp'av ghunchu'wI' je, jIHvaD Sujangta'mo', jIbel.

I don't know exactly why or how, I got the impression that {porgh} is only
to be used for humanoids.

Perhaps the word {'oynot} led me to believe that since it is to be used in
reference to "animal flesh", then {porgh} is to be used solely for
humanoids.

Anyway, there is another thing which came to my mind right now..

How would describe "human flesh" ? Would you accept {Human 'oynot} ?

qunnoH
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'

On 5 Nov 2016 11:24 pm, "Ed Bailey" <bellerophon.modeler at gmail.com> wrote:

> Except for {gham} and {ghIv} (are there any other exceptions?), analogous
> animal and humanoid body parts are named alike, so why not the whole
> {porgh}? Unless Maltz has something to say on the matter...
> ~mIp'av
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20161106/aa3a14e5/attachment-0017.htm>