tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 25 10:50:52 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: SIv (Re: Hello)
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: SIv (Re: Hello)
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:46:53 EST
In a message dated 2/24/1999 12:26:43 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< In the last issue of HolQeD, Okrand openly discusses this. He
states that the best way to learn the proper way to use words is
through examining usage.
In general, my approach has been to work with the best
information available. If a gloss definition suggests one thing,
I work with that one thing. If usage subsequently suggests
something else, I adjust. {Dub} is a good example. Everyone
assumed it was intransitive. From a couple canon examples, it
appears to be ONLY tansitive with no likely intransitive meaning.
Later we may discover that it also has an intransitive meaning.
We adapt. We do not presume, if we can avoid it.
charghwI' 'utlh >>
=============================
Now, this I like wholeheartedly.
I have seen lots of "presumptions." But, if we use MO's own recommendation
that we observe canon usage, we will be conservative but also quite correct.
Meanwhile, the discussion/argument/war regarding {naQ} got started because
someone (ghunchu'wI', I recall, maybe not mistakenly) used {naQ} to imply that
a chemical composition (recalling, again) would be complete. Although TKD and
no further evidence says that {naQ} may be defined as "intact," I can accept
this. I think of a whole pie, with or without sugar, an entire period of
time, with or without certain events being scheduled therein, even a full moon
is possible. I disagreed with you, charghwI', about the pieces of a kit not
being {naQ}. I feel that the kit contains all the pieces, even though they are
not put together. My one and only real disagreement was that fuel or chemical
compounds, for example, would be "intact" but not "complete" or "whole." I
felt that a chemical compound would be a different entity, intact unto itself,
all there, but a different substance altogether. I still feel that the new
substance would be {naQ}.
peHruS
peHruS