<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">SuStel has already offered appropriate terms for “many people”.</div><br class=""><div class="">
<div dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan<br class=""><br class="">rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.</div><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class=""><br class=""></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Feb 21, 2019, at 2:03 PM, SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" class="">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/21/2019 1:37 PM, Ed Bailey wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CABSTb1dhJq3aWBA-A-nD0ekPZojy5QxHHJeE=x2avYxKv9T01w@mail.gmail.com" class="">It
could be translated as "the many," just as <b class="">qanwI'</b> can be
translated "the old."</blockquote><p class="">Actually, I want to counter this. <b class="">qanwI'</b> can be
translated <i class="">the old</i> only in the sense that plural suffixes
are optional in Klingon, and <b class="">qanwI'pu'</b> means <i class="">the old.</i>
Assuming no dropped plural suffix, <b class="">qanwI'</b> only means <i class="">old
one.</i></p><p class="">TKD is fairly clear on the meaning of <b class="">-wI',</b> and it's
always explained as <i class="">thing which does</i> or <i class="">one who does,</i>
and even once as <i class="">thing which is</i> (we have since gotten
canon for <i class="">one who is</i>). Nowhere is it explained as <i class="">things
which do</i><i class="">, </i><i class="">those who do, things which are</i> or <i class="">those
who are.</i></p><p class="">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 <b class="">-wI'</b>
does.</p><p class="">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, <b class="">law'wI'pu'</b>
means <i class="">the many,</i>" and there'd be no problem. You just can't
get there with what we have now without making an assumption.<br class="">
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name/">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org" class="">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br class="">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>