tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 23 06:36:24 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Hoch



jIja':
> > I'd like to say that in the case of nIn, I am on peHruS's side.
> > 
> > how can fuel be "whole"? what is bIQ naQ? tI naQ?
> > 
> > I doubt that I would understand these expressions without
> > further explanation.
> > 

mujang charghwI', ja':
> I'm saying that for the most part, these WOULD be very curious 
> terms. What peHruS is saying is that these are quite normal 
> terms and he understands them and they have a meaning that is 
> quite different from that others have expressed that they would 
> mean.
> 
all right, what I meant was, that IIRC peHruS was complaining about
interpreting nIn naQ as a kind of fuel that is actually useable as
fuel as opposed to some chemical substance that might be used as
fuel if it wasn't somehow "incomplete".

I do not understand what nIn naQ means, unless you accompany it
with several paragraphs of explanation. the same goes for my other
examples. 

> Now, what about peHruS's precious {nIn naQ}? Okay, lets look at 
> {naQ nIn}. What does that mean, exactly? Well, let's see. By 
> peHruS's description, it should mean, "The fuel is full." Not 
> "The fuel TANK is full." Just, "The fuel is full." That looks 
> odd to me.
> 
o.k. I too don't agree with that interpretation.

> And what about your examples? {bIQ naQ}. {tI naQ}. Let's turn 
> them around and see what they say. {naQ bIQ}. {naQ tI}.
> 
> Do they make sense to you? They don't make sense to me. If you 

that was exactly my point. nIn to me is the same kind of word
as bIQ or Hap or SIp. 

                                           Marc Ruehlaender
                                           aka HomDoq
                                           [email protected]



Back to archive top level