<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">It
could be translated as "the many," just as <b>qanwI'</b> can be
translated "the old."</blockquote>
<p>Actually, I want to counter this. <b>qanwI'</b> can be
translated <i>the old</i> only in the sense that plural suffixes
are optional in Klingon, and <b>qanwI'pu'</b> means <i>the old.</i>
Assuming no dropped plural suffix, <b>qanwI'</b> only means <i>old
one.</i></p>
<p>TKD is fairly clear on the meaning of <b>-wI',</b> and it's
always explained as <i>thing which does</i> or <i>one who does,</i>
and even once as <i>thing which is</i> (we have since gotten
canon for <i>one who is</i>). Nowhere is it explained as <i>things
which do</i><i>, </i><i>those who do, things which are</i> or <i>those
who are.</i></p>
<p>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>-wI'</b>
does.</p>
<p>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>law'wI'pu'</b>
means <i>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>
</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>