tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 24 20:37:04 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[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'

Back to archive top level