tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 27 21:09:55 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: KLBC: lIy Hale-Bopp

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: KLBC: lIy Hale-Bopp
• Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 00:10:57 -0500
• In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

tlhob 'Iwvan:
>Is there any reason to think that {wew} `glow' doesn't express a state?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'a state'.

I think {wew} and {Sal} and {meQ} belong in the same category,
and I think they are more active than {boch} and {jen} and {tuj}.

I tend to believe that if {meQ} indicated 'a state or quality'
instead of an action, it would have been defined as "be on fire"
instead of "burn".  Similarly with {Qong} and {qet} and {ba'}.

-- ghunchu'wI'

• References:
  • Re: KLBC: lIy Hale-Bopp
    • From: Ivan A Derzhanski <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: RE: too hot ?
• Next by Date: Re: meaty translation
• Prev by thread: Re: KLBC: lIy Hale-Bopp
• Next by thread: RE: KLBC: lIy Hale-Bopp
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level