tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 21 09:04:49 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: KLBC: *London*Daq lengwIj

Matt asks:
: Possibly Complicated Question: If a noun already 'seems' to have a
: diminutive suffix tacked onto it (like {lupDujHom} for shuttlecraft),
: are we okay to put another {-Hom} on it, like I have above? I also get
: into semantic questions between:
: tlhIngan Hol:           {lupDujHom'a'} 
: {lupDujHom} as root:      large shuttlecraft
: {*lupDuj*} as root:         'significantly'-small *lupDuj*
:                       very-small *lupDuj*
: tlhIngan Hol:           {lupDujHomHom}
: {lupDujHom} as root:       small shuttlecraft
: {*lupDuj*} as root:          'insignificantly'-small *lupDuj* 
:                      tiny-small *lupDuj*
: I know *lupDuj* doesn't exist as a root-word yet... but humor me. <G> 
: It's logic where proportion is concerned -- trying to tack {-Hom} /
: {'a'} suffices onto {HochHom} strikes me as being very mind-bending.

pagh replies: 
: So to answer your question, no, you can't put another type 1 suffix on
: <lupDujHom> or <van'a'> or anything similar.

Why avoid {mach} "be small" and {tIn} "be big, be large" in favor of {-Hom}
{-'a'}?  This is not a criticism, just curious -- beginners always want to use
the Type 1 suffixes for *every* size reference, which is not what they're for
at all.  I see nothing wrong with 

 lupDujHom tIn lupDujHom mach
 lupDujHom tInqu' lupDujHom machqu'

to refer to various sizes of shipboard shuttlecraft carrying 2-6 people.  I
also see nothing wrong with using *{lupDuj} for larger shuttles or passenger
liners, like those wedge-shaped vessels carrying (I assume) some 50-200
passengers we see regularly travelling between Bajor and DS9.

Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level