tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 25 14:12:34 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: (n) orbit?
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: (n) orbit?
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 17:12:32 -0500
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> (message from Alan Anderson on Wed, 25 Jan 1995 07:06:01 -0500)
>Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 07:06:01 -0500
>Originator: [email protected]
>From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
>However, in the spirit of encouraging discussion, I offer this. As I was leafing
>at random through TKD, I came across the following relevant set of definitions:
> {Don} = (v) parallel, be parallel, go parallel to
> {HeDon} = (n) parallel course
>{He} = (n) course, route
Note, though, that all of these definitions are very close in meaning.
>Since we also know that
> {bav} = (v) orbit
>I suggest we consider the possibility that
> {Hebav} = (n) orbital course or path ** proposed new word
>I'm proposing a newly _discovered_ word, of course, not a newly _invented_ one! :-)
This would be a noun-verb compound, something which we do not know we are
permitted to do. Alternatively, you can consider it to be "He bav",
considering bav adjectivally, but see below.
>If we stretch just a little, we might try to use {bav} as an adjective.
> {bav} = (v) orbit, be an orbit ** proposed extension to definition
>Then {He bav} would do just fine without needing an entirely new word.
"to orbit" and "to be an orbit" are vastly different concepts. I see that
you're trying to get something like "bavbogh He". I would accept that,
since in a sense a route can be considered to "go" someplace (a road goes
north and south, etc), and thus the route could be considered to "orbit"
the planet. But "bav" is not a stative-type verb, and we have not been
free about using just any old verb adjectivally.
>nuq bIQub?
"boQub" Daja' DaneH, qar'a'?
~mark