tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 07 10:39:01 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Noun suffixes, type 5
charghwI':
: >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:
: Again we are faced with the vagueness of some of the dictionary
: definitions. In the definition of /lel/ as 'remove, take out',
: are these two separate operations (in which case I would concede
: your point), or does 'take out' restrict the meaning of 'remove'?
: No way of knowing without canon (and probably not even then!).
I guess that's my cue... {lel} "get out, take out" has never been used in
canon.
But an observation: Is wood really extracted {lel} from a tree, or are the
bark and branches removed {teq} ("take off") - also never used in canon -
from the wood? Can one say that the wood {Sor Hap} is processed from the
trees
{Sor}, much like metals {baS} are refined *{watlhmoH} ("purified"?) - or
should I say extracted {lel}! - from ore {nagh}/{tlhIl} and other natural
resources *{jo tlhol}? How do speakers of other Terran languages view this?
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons