tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 23 06:43:48 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hoch
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Hoch
- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 08:43:45 CST
> 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
[email protected]