tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 01 09:13:44 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: New words in HolQeD 5.1
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: New words in HolQeD 5.1
- Date: Wed, 01 May 96 12:05:58 EST
Alan wrote:
>peSHIr writes:
>>But what I wanted to write about: Can we conclude the existence of the new
>>words below from the lits of words from CD-ROM (page 20, HolQeD 5.1)?
>
>Possibly, but caution is advisable. For instance:
Unfortunately my copy of HolQeD hasn't shown up yet, so I'm not sure how they
are presented. I'm going from my cherished script.
>>lung = lizard (n)
>
>{Duran lung} might be a name similar to "Komodo dragon", so {lung} might
>not be the literal word for "lizard."
The thing is, we don't have a cannon example of a series of nouns (NOT compound
nouns) meaning anything but what the individual words mean. I think it's pretty
safe to think of <lung> as a generic for lizard. (Now, you do know that the
Komodo is not a lizard, right? It's it own special category.)
>>bal = jug (n)
>{bIQ} enters into combinations with other words that aren't extremely
>intuitive -- {bIQtIQ} "river" and {bIQ'a'} "ocean". Maybe {bal} isn't
>literally "jug". The translation given in HolQeD is the single word
>"waterjug"; perhaps {bal} is a generic term for bottle or something,
>and only means "jug" when combined with water. I'd be less leery of
>this if HolQeD had said "water jug" as two words.
Well, blame Okrand. "Waterjug" is what is written in the script. I think the
confusion is that the tlhIngan is written as <bIQ bal>, with a space. So I'd
translate that as "the water's jug." Thus again, I'd feel safe using it as a
stand alone noun.
r'Hul