<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/21/2019 1:37 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABSTb1dhJq3aWBA-A-nD0ekPZojy5QxHHJeE=x2avYxKv9T01w@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:55 PM SuStel <<a
href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" moz-do-not-send="true">sustel@trimboli.name</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><b>law'</b> means <i>be many,</i> so <b>law'wI'</b>
means <i>one who is many...</i> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>The rigidity of this translation is what makes it
nonsensical. For anything countable, the meaning of <b>law'</b> makes
<b>law'wI'</b> inherently plural. It could be translated as
"the many," just as <b>qanwI'</b> can be translated "the
old."<br>
As a substitute for a mass noun, <b>law'wI'</b> could be
translated "much." None of which means Klingons actually use
the term <b>law'wI'</b>, but even if they don't, I expect
they'd get your meaning.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Exactly what I said: "yeah, but you get it anyway."<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>