tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 21 09:04:49 1999
[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}
and
{-'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'
etc.
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.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons