[tlhIngan Hol] male female baby

[mayqel qunenoS]

SuStel:
> That implies to my mind that the baby is a man.

So, if you saw {ghu loDHom}, this would imply that the baby is a boy ? And
if yes, what's the problem ? This was the intended meaning in the first
place.

mayqel q

On Oct 3, 2017 17:42, "SuStel" <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> On 10/3/2017 10:37 AM, Lieven wrote:
>
> Am 03.10.2017 um 15:57 schrieb André Müller:
>
> My thoughts on this: We say {puqloD} and {puqbe'}, which are literally
> 'childman' and 'childwoman'. So I think {ghu loD} is more logical.
>
>
> In addition, we also have the {qItbe'} a female kind of guineafowl.
>
> Cousins are {lorbe'} and {lorloD}, and {tey'be'} and {tey'loD}.
>
> This might confirm that the gender follows the type it odifies. Having
> {be'nal} and {loDnal}, doe not count by the way, beause here, all the
> nal-ed family memebers end with {-nal}.
>
> But what if Klingons do not make a difference with babies? We don't do
> that in English either, do we?
>
> To avoid the problem, I would make this two phrases:
> {ghu vIlegh. loD ghaH.}
>
> That implies to my mind that the baby is a man. Say this instead: *ghu
> vIlegh; loDHom ghaH.*
>
> --
> SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171003/e3c482ae/attachment-0017.htm>