Re: Hoch

[WestphalWz@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/22/1999 1:53:47 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
ruehli@iastate.edu writes:

<< 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 can see that someone might consider fuel "incomplete" if it did not meet
certain octane standards.  As for water, if I have filtered all the minerals,
etc. out of it, have I made it "incomplete"?  I have {watlhmoH} it.  It is no
longer {tlhol}.  But, I'm still betting that it is {naQ}.  Okay, to me that
means the water supply is all there.

Please see my allusions to {chab naQ}.  chaq HaQchor Hutlh chabvam, 'ach
pe'lu'be'mo' naQ chab.  'e' vIHar.

So, if a chemical composition is missing something which would make it
"complete," I fear it may be a completely different chemical composition.  It
a molecule is missing an element, it may be a different entity altogether.
The word for this is {pIm}, not {naQbe'}.  If my "pie" is missing something
essential to you but not to me, I still have an entire pie.  This is a matter
of personal preference as to what we like in our pies.  In the case of
chemistry, we don't get a personal preference; the laws of nature are
constant.

peHruS