tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 30 11:36:22 2012
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] qIHpu'ghach wa'DIch: 'ay' cha'
<p><br>
loghaD:<br>
> qeylIS betleH would probably be held as a betleH'a', but it's not called qeylIS betleH'a'; it receives its grandeur from being prefixed by "qeylIS". If you were to refer to qeylIS betleH'a', I'd assume you were talking about the greatest of his many betleHmey.</p>
<p>How would you interpret the following?<br>
{qeylIS mIv'a'}<br>
{qeylIS Daqtagh'a' DuQwI'Hommey}<br>
{lopno' 'uQ'a'}</p>
<p>I don't think {qeylIS betleH} is a {betleH'a'} merely by virtue of being associated with Kahless, unless it was already considered a {betleH'a'} by itself. Kahless can carry a {tajHom}, just like anybody else.</p>
<p>loghaD:<br>
> Likewise, the telmey of a neghvar are perhaps tel'a'mey when compared to the telDu' of a bird or even the telmey of a toQDuj, but if you were to refer to neghvar tel'a'mey, the idea I'd get is "the Negh'Var's main wings".</p>
<p>I also get the idea "the Negh'Var's main wings", but I think we arrive at this meaning differently:<br>
{[neghvar tel]['a'][mey]} "[the Negh'Var's [main] wings]" vs.<br>
{[neghvar] [tel'a'mey]} "[the Negh'Var's] [main wings]"</p>
<p>I think {tel'a'} by itself has a meaning "main-wing". This isn't clear in English because it's two words (i.e., we don't have a single word to describe the thing that {tel'a'} refers to), but consider {telHom}, which we can perhaps render using a word such as "flap". Like {mIv'a'}, I think {telHom} is not just a {tel} that has a relative relationship to regular {tel}, but its own type of {tel}. A {telHom} isn't just a "wing which is small", but a "small-wing", a "flap".</p>
<p>This is how I understand {SoSbor'a'} as well. A ship can have a {De'wI' SoSbor'a'} "main computer core", independently of whether it has any other computer cores.</p>
<p>This is also how we can have {qepHom} which are bigger than {qep'a'}. {{:-)</p>
<p>loghaD:<br>
> Consider also a pilllow might be called QongDaq buqHom (and a sleeping bag a QongDaq buq'a'), and a pants pocket a yopwaH buq. To me, this supports the idea that -'a' and -Hom are distinctions within a category (most of the time, at least; in natural language, I'd expect there to be plenty of exceptions).</p>
<p>So {buq} is a word that we have different English words for, depending on their relative size/function. For example, "sack", "bag", "pocket", "purse", "pouch". A pillow could be called a {QongDaq buqHom} (something like "bed purse"), whereas a sleeping bag is a {QongDaq buq'a'} (something like "bed sack"), and a pants pocket is just {yopwaH buq} "pants pocket". I'd still parse {QongDaq buqHom} as {[QongDaq] [buqHom]} rather than {[QongDaq buq][Hom]}.</p>
<p>--<br>
De'vID</p>
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol