tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 24 19:28:16 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
>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.
You don't seem to have difficulty with the translation "complete fuel"
itself, just a problem with interpreting it. That's probably because
you don't have experience discussing various types of fuels, and you've
never been part of a group debating whether hydrogen peroxide is really
a "fuel" in the context of rocket propellant.
I agree, the meaning might require some explanation if the shared context
is not sufficient. But that's just a matter of coming to know a concept.
The *grammar* being used should already be clear.
>"it depends on" the meaning of tI and yet has an "obvious meaning"
>to you? hmmm...
I see no contradiction here. :-) The phrase is obviously translated as
"complete vegetation". The deeper meaning depends of course on context.
I can imagine at least two possibilities, each of which suggests to me a
very unambiguous interpretation.
- Re: Hoch
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <email@example.com>