Re: Hoch

[Alan Anderson <aranders@netusa1.net>]

ja' HomDoq:
>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.

-- ghunchu'wI'