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

[De'vID]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 09:40, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:

> So, IMHO, {law'wI'} "thing/person which is many" makes no sense at all.
>
> Unless, maybe, in situations where the Borg queen said "I am the one who
> is many", but that's a very unusual situation, even in English.
> [...]
> Still, this is an interesting question that cannot be answered entirely,
> as Maltz may tell us other things about that. What about {mapuS} or
> {malaw'}? Isn't that "we are many"?
>

As I alluded to earlier:
law'wI' 'oH pongwIj'e', malaw'mo'. (Mark 5:9)

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190222/d6965603/attachment-0015.htm>