tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 07 10:39:01 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Noun suffixes, type 5

: >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?
: 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

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
{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?

Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level