Re: Hoch

[Marc Ruehlaender <ruehli@iastate.edu>]

> I thought "peHruS's side" was that {nIn naQ} *is* the right phrase.  And
> a big trigger for this entire (!) exchange was when I explained how *I*
> interpreted the way a fuel could be "whole" or "complete".
> 
I seem to have misremembered peHruS's interpretation. But I
certainly don't agree with yours. I believe that nIn naQ has
NO obvious meaning.

> >I doubt that I would understand these expressions without
> >further explanation.
> 
> {bIQ naQ} does sound a bit odd to me.  How can water be anything except
> complete?  Water is water, and you can't take anything away from it and
> have it still be water.  I can imagine situations where it would apply,
> but they *do* require further explanation.
> 
for me, the same applies to fuel.

> But {tI naQ} has an obvious meaning to me.  It's definitely the complete
> vegetation.  It's not the rose that has had its thorns removed, or the
> grapevine with its leaves stripped.  It's the vegetation that is not
> missing any parts.  It's the vegetation having all components.  Or maybe
> it could refer to a comprehensive sample of the flora of an area with no
> species overlooked; it depends on exactly how one means {tI} itself.
> 
"it depends on" the meaning of tI and yet has an "obvious meaning"
to you? hmmm...

                                           Marc Ruehlaender
                                           aka HomDoq
                                           ruehli@iastate.edu