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

[Will Martin]

I’m totally with SuStel on this one. {-wI’} is a thing which does the verb or one who does the verb. {law’wI’pu’}, if it makes any sense at all, would be “ones capable of using language who are each many”…, which doesn’t really make sense to me. You are working too hard to make a special word.

SuStel has already offered appropriate terms for “many people”.

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.




> On Feb 21, 2019, at 2:03 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> 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 <http://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/20190221/7bd0957b/attachment-0015.htm>