quljIb:
> {tera'ngan 'oynot} or {tera'ngan porgh}, I'd
> think
If I was trying to find a way to say "human flesh" then the only solution I could think of, would be {Human 'oynot} or {tera'ngan 'oynot} (as you already suggested).
But the question is "how would a klingon understand the {Human/tera'ngan 'oynot}" ?
Would he understand "human flesh", or would he understand "human animal flesh" (which doesn't make much sense).
I believe that a human would indeed understand the {Human/tera'ngan 'oynot} as "human flesh".
But as far as the klingon mind is concerned, I truly don't know. Only maltz can tell us..
qunnoH
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
{tera'ngan 'oynot} or {tera'ngan porgh}, I'd think.
~quljIb
From: mayqel qunenoS
Sent: Sunday, November 6, 5:39 AM
Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Does porgh refer only to a human body ?
To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list
mIp'av ghunchu'wI' je, jIHvaD Sujangta'mo', jIbel.
I don't know exactly why or how, I got the impression that {porgh} is only to be used for humanoids.
Perhaps the word {'oynot} led me to believe that since it is to be used in reference to "animal flesh", then {porgh} is to be used solely for humanoids.
Anyway, there is another thing which came to my mind right now..
How would describe "human flesh" ? Would you accept {Human 'oynot} ?
qunnoH
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 5 Nov 2016 11:24 pm, "Ed Bailey" <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com
> wrote: Except for {gham} and {ghIv} (are there any other exceptions?), analogous animal and humanoid body parts are named alike, so why not the whole {porgh}? Unless Maltz has something to say on the matter...
~mIp'av
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org