[Tlhingan-hol] petaQ!

[ghunchu'wI' 'utlh]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM, David Trimboli <david at trimboli.name> wrote:
> A footnote in the paq'batlh (pp. 70–1) claims that {petaQ} is derived from
> {taQ} "be weird" with the plural imperative prefix {pe-}, and that it means
> "something like 'weirdo.'"
>
> Do we know whether Okrand had any input on grammatical footnotes that are
> not derived from outside references? Is this derivation "canonical"?

Already discussed briefly on the list last year:

http://stodi.lojban.org/~clsn/webarchives/2011/November/msg00412.html

In short, don't put much stock in the authority of the footnotes.

-- ghunchu'wI'