| 3 matches.
|
|
|
| tlh:
| *be’nI’nal |
| warn:
| non-canon suggestion, use loDnI’ be’nal or be’nI’ be’nal instead |
| pos:
| noun |
| en:
| sister-in-law |
| sv:
| svägerska |
| def:
| 2010-12-22-Email (2010-12-25-Email) |
| cite:
| 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. [2010-12-22-Email] |
| see:
| loDnI’ be’nal; be’nI’ be’nal |
| tag:
| 2010 |
| data:
| non-canon; derived form |
| id:
| f8p |
|
|
| tlh:
| chut |
| pos:
| noun |
| en:
| law |
| sv:
| lag |
| def:
| TKD |
| tag:
| 1985 |
| id:
| pn1 |
|
|
| tlh:
| *loDnI’nal |
| warn:
| non-canon suggestion, use loDnI’ loDnal or be’nI’ loDnal |
| pos:
| noun |
| en:
| brother-in-law |
| sv:
| svåger |
| def:
| 2010-12-22-Email (2010-12-25-Email) |
| cite:
| 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. [2010-12-22-Email] |
| see:
| loDnI’ loDnal; be’nI’ loDnal |
| tag:
| 2010 |
| data:
| non-canon; derived form |
| id:
| hzv |