[tlhIngan Hol] Why not law'wI'pu' ?

[SuStel]

On 2/21/2019 1:37 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:
> It could be translated as "the many," just as *qanwI'* can be 
> translated "the old."

Actually, I want to counter this. *qanwI'* can be translated /the old/ 
only in the sense that plural suffixes are optional in Klingon, and 
*qanwI'pu'* means /the old./ Assuming no dropped plural suffix, *qanwI'* 
only means /old one./

TKD is fairly clear on the meaning of *-wI',* and it's always explained 
as /thing which does/ or /one who does,/ and even once as /thing which 
is/ (we have since gotten canon for /one who is/). Nowhere is it 
explained as /things which do//, //those who do, things which are/ or 
/those who are./

I agree that it's a fine point, but I don't think it's rigid so much as 
careful not to stray beyond what we know *-wI'* does.

Again, I'm not saying that the language is necessarily this specific, 
just that the evidence we actually have seems to point this way. Okrand 
could easily clarify with, "Oh, sure, *law'wI'pu'* means /the many,/" 
and there'd be no problem. You just can't get there with what we have 
now without making an assumption.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190221/f9521a6a/attachment-0015.htm>