tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 22 19:50:04 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hoch
ja' HomDoq:
>I'd like to say that in the case of nIn, I am on peHruS's side.
>
>how can fuel be "whole"? what is bIQ naQ? tI naQ?
I thought "peHruS's side" was that {nIn naQ} *is* the right phrase. And
a big trigger for this entire (!) exchange was when I explained how *I*
interpreted the way a fuel could be "whole" or "complete".
>I doubt that I would understand these expressions without
>further explanation.
{bIQ naQ} does sound a bit odd to me. How can water be anything except
complete? Water is water, and you can't take anything away from it and
have it still be water. I can imagine situations where it would apply,
but they *do* require further explanation.
But {tI naQ} has an obvious meaning to me. It's definitely the complete
vegetation. It's not the rose that has had its thorns removed, or the
grapevine with its leaves stripped. It's the vegetation that is not
missing any parts. It's the vegetation having all components. Or maybe
it could refer to a comprehensive sample of the flora of an area with no
species overlooked; it depends on exactly how one means {tI} itself.
-- ghunchu'wI'