tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 24 20:37:04 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hoch
ja' peHruS:
>I thought too quickly when I posted {chIm}. At the same time, it is a great
>example of how Alan and Will and David have taken only one of the various
>meanings of words while ignoring the others. Even in their argument about
>{naQ} they have concentrated on one of the meanings: "be complete."
Hey, be fair. I have always used the phrase "be complete" in ways that
are compatible with "be full" and "be whole" and "be entire" during this
debate. I specifically have *not* tried to use it to mean the kind of
"be complete" that would refer to finishing a procedure, or any other
meaning that doesn't match the "be full, whole, entire" which separates
the meaning of {naQ} from the meaning of {rIn}.
-- ghunchu'wI'