Re: Hoch

[Marc Ruehlaender <ruehli@iastate.edu>]

ja' charghwI':
> As an example, gasoline is a complete fuel for an automobile, 
> but it is an incomplete fuel for a rocket, since rockets require 
> their own oxygen supply, and gasoline doesn't have sufficient 
> oxygen to burn in a vaccuum. Meanwhile, the Saturn V rocket had 
> huge tanks of hydrogen and Oxygen which combined to make a 
> complete fuel for that rocket. The solid fuel in the boosters 
> for the Space Shuttle contain sufficient oxygen for burning in a 
> vaccuum, so that also is a "complete" fuel. This is what I sense 
> {naQ} is referring to.
> 
and I still firmly believe that you cannot expect anyone to
understand that this is what nIn naQ means to you without
explaining it with as many words...

anyway. my point is that words like nIn are simply not good
subjects for the verb naQ. thus sentences like naQ nIn are
out of the ordinary and need some/lots of context to make sense.
this should neither be seen as bad nor as surprising.

                                           Marc Ruehlaender
                                           aka HomDoq
                                           ruehli@iastate.edu