tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 09 04:32:24 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -choHmoH
- From: [email protected] (Matt Whiteacre)
- Subject: Re: -choHmoH
- Date: Fri, 9 Sep 94 13:27:48 PDT
>
>This pretty much agrees with what I was suggesting and
>contrasts with what the others were suggesting. They were
>saying that {-choHmoH} indicated a greater DEGREE of change,
>which is very different from what either you or I are saying.
>(am saying?)
>
I agree with ~mark and charghwI', but I think I may be able
to clear up some of the misunderstanding that led to the conclusion
that I advocated a position of greater degree of change.
I do think the {-choHmoH} does imply a greater degree of
change than {-moH} alone. The reason being that anything
is greater than nothing. {-moH} in its general meaning
does not indicate that there was and change occuring, while
{-choHmoH} clearly indicates that a change occured.
Based on this, the assersion that one implies a greater degree
of change than the other is a true, but useless statement.
Our positions are in agrement, but our semantic arguments differ.
>If Krankor opens a door, then Holtej holds it open while the
>rest of their regiment marches through it, you might say:
>
>lojmIt poSchoHmoH Qanqor 'ej 'oH poSmoH Holtej.
>
>> ~mark
>
>charghwI'
>
wIyajchuqbej 'e' vIQub
Do'val