tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 23 18:52:13 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hoch
In a message dated 2/22/1999 1:53:47 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[email protected] 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