Would you accept {loD ghu}, {be' ghu} for "male baby", "female baby" ? I wouldn't, but I would like to see what other people think, with regards to this matter. mayqel q
On the other hand, we do say {baS 'In} for "metal drum", so why not {loD ghu} for "male baby".. But the difference is, that in the {baS 'In} case, there can be no ambiguity, 'a in the {loD ghu}, one could mistake this as "baby (child) of a man". mayqel q On Oct 3, 2017 14:42, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Would you accept {loD ghu}, {be' ghu} for "male baby", "female baby" ?
I wouldn't, but I would like to see what other people think, with regards to this matter.
mayqel q
My thoughts on this: We say {puqloD} and {puqbe'}, which are literally 'childman' and 'childwoman'. So I think {ghu loD} is more logical. - André 2017-10-03 13:42 GMT+02:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
Would you accept {loD ghu}, {be' ghu} for "male baby", "female baby" ?
I wouldn't, but I would like to see what other people think, with regards to this matter.
mayqel q
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Am 03.10.2017 um 15:57 schrieb André Müller:
My thoughts on this: We say {puqloD} and {puqbe'}, which are literally 'childman' and 'childwoman'. So I think {ghu loD} is more logical.
In addition, we also have the {qItbe'} a female kind of guineafowl. Cousins are {lorbe'} and {lorloD}, and {tey'be'} and {tey'loD}. This might confirm that the gender follows the type it odifies. Having {be'nal} and {loDnal}, doe not count by the way, beause here, all the nal-ed family memebers end with {-nal}. But what if Klingons do not make a difference with babies? We don't do that in English either, do we? To avoid the problem, I would make this two phrases: {ghu vIlegh. loD ghaH.} -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.net http://www.klingonwiki.net
On 10/3/2017 10:37 AM, Lieven wrote:
Am 03.10.2017 um 15:57 schrieb André Müller:
My thoughts on this: We say {puqloD} and {puqbe'}, which are literally 'childman' and 'childwoman'. So I think {ghu loD} is more logical.
In addition, we also have the {qItbe'} a female kind of guineafowl.
Cousins are {lorbe'} and {lorloD}, and {tey'be'} and {tey'loD}.
This might confirm that the gender follows the type it odifies. Having {be'nal} and {loDnal}, doe not count by the way, beause here, all the nal-ed family memebers end with {-nal}.
But what if Klingons do not make a difference with babies? We don't do that in English either, do we?
To avoid the problem, I would make this two phrases: {ghu vIlegh. loD ghaH.}
That implies to my mind that the baby is a man. Say this instead: *ghu vIlegh; loDHom ghaH.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 10/3/2017 10:37 AM, Lieven wrote:
To avoid the problem, I would make this two phrases: {ghu vIlegh. loD ghaH.}
Am 03.10.2017 um 16:42 schrieb SuStel:
That implies to my mind that the baby is a man. Say this instead: *ghu vIlegh; loDHom ghaH.*
You are definitely right, that's more accurate. I had the same thing in mind as well. But then I thought like, hey, I already said it's a BABY. No need to mention the {Hom}-part any more. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.net http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery
Unless it's said during {mu'qaD veS}! Actually, both versions would be pretty insulting come to think of it. --Voragh -----Original Message----- From: tlhIngan-Hol [mailto:tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org] On Behalf Of Lieven On 10/3/2017 10:37 AM, Lieven wrote:
To avoid the problem, I would make this two phrases: {ghu vIlegh. loD ghaH.}
Am 03.10.2017 um 16:42 schrieb SuStel:
That implies to my mind that the baby is a man. Say this instead: *ghu vIlegh; loDHom ghaH.*
You are definitely right, that's more accurate. I had the same thing in mind as well. But then I thought like, hey, I already said it's a BABY. No need to mention the {Hom}-part any more. -- Lieven L. Litaer
On 10/3/2017 10:46 AM, Lieven wrote:
On 10/3/2017 10:37 AM, Lieven wrote:
To avoid the problem, I would make this two phrases: {ghu vIlegh. loD ghaH.}
Am 03.10.2017 um 16:42 schrieb SuStel:
That implies to my mind that the baby is a man. Say this instead: *ghu vIlegh; loDHom ghaH.*
You are definitely right, that's more accurate. I had the same thing in mind as well. But then I thought like, hey, I already said it's a BABY. No need to mention the {Hom}-part any more.
I wouldn't want to approach this too much like a math problem. Suffixes aren't exactly like mathematical operators. A *loDHom* is a different thing than a *loD,* not just a *loD* that's had the operation of minorness performed on it. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
That implies to my mind that the baby is a man.
So, if you saw {ghu loDHom}, this would imply that the baby is a boy ? And if yes, what's the problem ? This was the intended meaning in the first place. mayqel q On Oct 3, 2017 17:42, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 10/3/2017 10:37 AM, Lieven wrote:
Am 03.10.2017 um 15:57 schrieb André Müller:
My thoughts on this: We say {puqloD} and {puqbe'}, which are literally 'childman' and 'childwoman'. So I think {ghu loD} is more logical.
In addition, we also have the {qItbe'} a female kind of guineafowl.
Cousins are {lorbe'} and {lorloD}, and {tey'be'} and {tey'loD}.
This might confirm that the gender follows the type it odifies. Having {be'nal} and {loDnal}, doe not count by the way, beause here, all the nal-ed family memebers end with {-nal}.
But what if Klingons do not make a difference with babies? We don't do that in English either, do we?
To avoid the problem, I would make this two phrases: {ghu vIlegh. loD ghaH.}
That implies to my mind that the baby is a man. Say this instead: *ghu vIlegh; loDHom ghaH.*
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 10/3/2017 11:10 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
That implies to my mind that the baby is a man.
So, if you saw {ghu loDHom}, this would imply that the baby is a boy ? And if yes, what's the problem ? This was the intended meaning in the first place.
I didn't say that. I'm not going to take a position on how to say /baby boy;/ I don't think we have a clear enough idea of how *loD *and *be'* combine with other words. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 3 October 2017 at 16:42, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 10/3/2017 10:37 AM, Lieven wrote:
To avoid the problem, I would make this two phrases: {ghu vIlegh. loD ghaH.}
That implies to my mind that the baby is a man. Say this instead: *ghu vIlegh; loDHom ghaH.*
Really? {loD} is defined as "male, man". Having stated {ghu vIlegh}, it's obvious that {loD ghaH} means "he's male". When I read {loDHom ghaH}, it makes me think the baby isn't really a baby but an older child. -- De'vID
{loD ghu}, {be' ghu} both look like genitives, not what you're positing. It might be understandable, but it doesn't look like the right way to say what you want. stevo On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:42 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Would you accept {loD ghu}, {be' ghu} for "male baby", "female baby" ?
I wouldn't, but I would like to see what other people think, with regards to this matter.
mayqel q
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (7)
-
André Müller -
De'vID -
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
MorphemeAddict -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel