tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 06 19:42:58 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 323
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 323
- Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 22:43:29 -0500
ghItlh taghqIj:
>>Qagh taghqIj mu'tlegh.
>
>bIlughHa' - Qaghpu' jIH'e'. :) (is this usage of <Qagh> canon? It seems
>to me that the word <Qagh> is not really suitable to apply to inanimate
>things - they are not 'in error', they are 'an error'. Maybe this is just
>an idiosynchratic use of English where I live...)
I see your point, but I don't think the question is all that important.
I'm usually a stickler for precise meanings, but for some reason I don't
think it matters whether the verb {Qagh} has to refer to an action taken
by something animate. The existence of the noun {Qagh} probably has
something to do with my gut feelings on this one, but I haven't quite
pinned down my reasoning.
>> pab chutvam qawlu'meH qeqqu'nISlu'taH.
>
>jIQochbe'qu'. (qeqqu' - is this canon, or a <Qagh>?)
What's the problem? It's {qeq} "practice" plus {-qu'} (emphatic).
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj