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

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' On 6 Nov 2016 5:01 pm, "David Joslyn" <gaerfindel@hotmail.com> wrote:

{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