tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 21 22:23:05 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: KLBC: *London*Daq lengwIj

ja' Voragh:
>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 think it *should* be a criticism.  {-Hom} and {-'a'} aren't supposed to
indicate a quantitative difference; they're for a *qualitative* difference.
A {SuvwI''a'} isn't necessarily bigger than a mere {SuvwI'} -- he's just a
little more warrior-like, a little more important.  A {QelHom} can refer
to a medical intern; it doesn't imply anything about how big he or she is.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level