tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 05 22:06:28 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-bogh} vs {-meH}
Alan Anderson wrote:
>
> ghItlh SuStel:
> >I suppose you are technically correct, but I find {ghormeH taj} to be
> >inferior to {ghorbogh taj}. Why complicate matters with -{meH}?
>
> It's the difference between identifying the knife by what it does
> and identifying the knife by what it is for. One can use a steak
> knife to jimmy a lock, but it's still a {Ha'DIbaH pe'meH taj}.
> Okay, it's now a {lojmIt poSmoHbogh taj}, but that's not its *name*
> or its *purpose*, that's only what it *did*. One can misuse almost
> any tool; the common screwdriver can accomplish more tasks than its
> inventor ever dreamed of, but it remains a "tool for driving screws."
> In the case of an "axe", it's not just any "knife which breaks" (*).
> It's a tool whose *purpose* is to chop wood.
So, as a name gormeH taj is OK? Even preferable?
> (*) The transitivity issue nabs us here, too. Is {ghor} transitive?
> If not, a {ghorbogh taj} would be inferior merchandise :-), and a
> {ghormeH taj} would be worthless except as a stage prop. Then again,
> maybe it could be an assassin's weapon, intended to remain in the
> victim's body.
Ah, if not transitive then: Hom ghormeH taj
I had a battle ax in mind and most martial artists (note I didn't say soldier)
prefer not to throw their weapons away.
BTW, as a name can it be run together as in: HomghormeHtaj ?
Qapla'
QetaH
(Chet Braun)