{So’lu’bogh Sut} would have worked well in my youth, but Madonna made that term obsolete, not that nobody noticed that she made the term “underwear” obsolete once people started wearing them on the outside, and hip hop made them blingy and obvious for both genders. Sent from my iPhone. charghwI’
On Apr 21, 2019, at 3:49 PM, Lawrence M. Schoen <klingonguy@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 3:18 PM Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
On Apr 21, 2019, at 2:55 PM, Lawrence M. Schoen <klingonguy@gmail.com> wrote:
English used the term "small clothes" in the 17th thru 19th centuries, and there are still instances of it being used today. So why not «Sut mach»?
I was about to suggest {SutHom}, which I think works in most contexts where I would say “underwear”.
Yes, of course. «SutHom» is much better than «Sut mach», if for no other reason than because you can say «mach SutHom» when they're too snug.
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org