Re: Noun suffixes, type 5

["William H. Martin" <whm2m@server1.mail.virginia.edu>]

On Thu, 7 Jan 1999 07:46:39 -0800 (PST) Terrence Donnelly 
<pag000@mail.connect.more.net> wrote:

> At 06:56 AM 1/7/99 -0800, charghwI' wrote:
> >On Wed, 6 Jan 1999 17:35:32 -0800 (PST) WestphalWz@aol.com wrote:
> 
> >> Not yet.  I think {lel} means "extract" a sword from its sheath.  Qov has
> used
> >> {lel} for taking food out of a refrigerator.
> >
> >These are fine uses. I think that "extracting" wood from a tree 
> >is not different. The sword, food and wood were in their 
> >containers and it was removed from that container. What is your 
> >point?
> >
> 
> If I may answer for peHruS, I think the point is that he thinks
> removing wood from a tree _is_ different.  So do I.  I think you can
> only /lel/ definite things from a definite container.  Both the sword and
> the food are distinct items that are held within something, from which
> you can /lel/ them.  Wood as part of its tree is not a distinct item from the
> tree itself.  If we had a separate verb for 'extract', I'd use that
> for the wood, but not for the sword and the food (I'd also use it for
> removing ore from the ground).  We don't have such a verb, as I
> recall, but I don't think /lel/ can be substituted for it.

Your argument is well stated and well taken. Meanwhile, I think 
there is a slippery slope one would encounter while trying to 
assign the threshold of functionality for {lel}. You say it 
works for a sword from a sheath and food from a refrigerator. 
Does it work for nuH from a nuH bey'? Stones from a pile? Blood 
from a patient? Water from a stream? Wood from a tree? Since 
there is no distinct verb for this, you prefer that there is no 
verb for this at all rather than that there is this verb 
stretched beyond your preference?
 
> -- ter'eS

charghwI' 'utlh