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

[David Joslyn]

{tera'ngan 'oynot} or {tera'ngan porgh}, I'd think.

~quljIb

From: mayqel qunenoS
Sent: Sunday, November 6, 5:39 AM
Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Does porgh refer only to a human body ?
To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list

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<mailto: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<mailto: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/e9a5786d/attachment-0017.htm>