tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 16 09:18:47 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Word Origin Speculation II
G.F. Proechel (pIntIn) wrote (via Kenneth Traft):
>["reversies"]... I should like to provide a longer list of examples.
>
>SIm/mIS (calculate/confuse)
>jab/baj (serve food -- as a job/earn)
>je/'ej (and/and)
>joq/qoj (and/or)
>ghap/pagh (either/or)
>mup/pum (strike, fall)
>ghup/pugh (swallow, dregs)
>
>This brings the total to twelve -- does twelve "reversies" constitute a
>significant observation? qatlhochnIS!
bIchovHa'law'mo' jIbepnIS.
With the exception of the "mirror conjunctions", I don't see the
obvious relatedness of these word pairs. How is "calculate" either
a synonym or antonym of "be confused" (*not* "confuse")? Maybe one
will "strike" the ground after he "falls", but that's a BIG stretch.
{ghup} and {pugh} can both relate to drinking, I suppose...
Let's see what I can come up with -- in the interest of mnemonics,
of course.
bach/chab (shoot/pie) -- tossing a pie in someone's face?
moH/Hom (ugly/bone} -- "beauty is skin deep but ugly goes clear to the bone"?
Haq/qaH (sir/surgery) -- sir/sur- sound alike?
Such/chuS (visit/be noisy) -- when relatives come to visit?
There are indeed a few "reversies" that seem intentional, but except for
the conjunctions, I consider them to be isolated jokes, not evidence of
a general category.
>Another category which d'armand Spears appears to be unaware of is those
>words
>which use q a Q as semantically related phonemes. (I say this because of his
>rejection of the pair puq/Qup (child, young)
>
>qam/Qam (foot, stand)
>wuq/wuQ (decide, headache)
>qay'/Qay' (problem, blow one's top)
>qeH/QeH (resent, be angry)
>qaq/QaQ (preferable, good)
I must protest this continuous sloppiness in presenting the meanings.
{wuQ} does *not* mean "headache"; it is a verb: "have a headache".
{qay'} means "be a problem", not "problem". {qaq} and {QaQ} are also
verbs.
I also don't see how {wuq} and {wuQ} have related meanings.
>There are other examples, but you would surely see them as stretches.
>rarchuqbogh mu'mey boghovlaHchugh, mu'tay'lIj boghurmeH ngeDqu'.
jIQoch. bIghojlaHmeH rarchuqbogh mu'mey DawuvnISchugh, QIt bIghojbej.
I have to admit that I don't really understand the point of all this. Are
these observations meant to make it easier for people to learn vocabulary?
I don't see how misrepresenting {qaSpa'} as the word "before" and telling
someone to imagine a "beef steak" on top of a "cash pot" does anything to
help someone learn the meanings the verb {qaS} or the suffix {-pa'}, much
less when they are appropriate. {rInDI'}/"reindeer" indeed...
-- ghunchu'wI'