tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 21 12:01:20 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: *London*Daq lengwIj
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: *London*Daq lengwIj
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 12:54:59 -0700
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.
ja' Voragh:
: 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.
Good suggestion. <-Hom> and <-'a'> are very much general purpose tools.
<tIn> and <mach> apply only to physical size.
pagh
Beginners' Grammarian