[[
  [2011-02-06] added document
  [2013-04-11] minor summary update

  Type: email
  Date: 22 December 2010
  Title: {latlh 'e'nalpu'}
  Author: Lieven L. Litaer (reposting part of an email from Marc Okrand)
  Summary: Describing relationships like <brother-in-law>, <sister-in-law>, and
    spouses siblings’ spouses.

]]

Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 21:12:04 +0100
From: Lieven Litaer <lieven.litaer@web.de>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Subject: latlh 'e'nalpu'

Okay, now that we have agreed on what {ghIn} might mean, it's time for 
the next bit of Marc Okrand's email:

There was another question about whether {loDnI'nal} and {be'nI'nal} 
could be "brother-in-law" and "sister-in-law."  Maltz said he didn't 
think there were specific words for these concepts.  He said to just 
describe the relationship: {loDnI' loDnal} and {be'nI' loDnal} for 
"brother-in-law" and {loDnI' be'nal} and {be'nI' be'nal} for 
"sister-in-law."  He said you could even say things like {be'nal loDnI' 
be'nal} "wife's brother's wife."  But he preferred to call all these 
people {'e'nalpu'} "people who married into the family."

(Marc Okrand's Email of November 15th, 2010)

Quvar.
www.qepHom.de



[[eof]]