tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 18 12:31:09 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
HeghmoH (WAS Re: vav jaj)
- From: [email protected] (Christiane Scharf)
- Subject: HeghmoH (WAS Re: vav jaj)
- Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 21:33:57 +0200
jatlh charghwI'
(About my use of {HeghmoH} as an adjective)
> [arguments snipped]
> If you wanted to say, "The poison is fatal" odds are a beginner
> would never think of using {HeghmoH}. I think this is the reason
> this word is in the dictionary. You can still use {HeghmoH} with
> an explicit direct object to mean what you seek. Okrand is not
> restricting {HeghmoH} to mean only what it is called in the
> dictionary. He is adding a meaning. The question is, is
> {HeghmoH} a separate word from {Hegh+moH}? Only Okrand can
> answer that and so far he hasn't.
Your arguments seem reasonable. Though I agree that it might be there for
the beginner's convenience who wants to say "That poison is fatal", it has
the opposite effect on me. It rather adds confusion instead of making the
situation much clearer. It strikes me as odd that some words in the
dictionary are not "real" words for themselves but merely represent _one_
possible use of the English gloss. If I want to say "that poison is fatal",
I can use the word: {HeghmoH tarvetlh}. But if I want to say "the fatal
poison" I'll have to say {HeghmoHbogh tar} instead of {*tar HeghmoH}. So
not the meaning of {HeghmoH} is restricted, but the meaning of "be fatal".
Alas! These words should be marked with a {yIyep! rapchu'be' mu'vam DIvI'
Hol mu' je.} stamp. A proverb comes to my mind: yIvoq 'ach yI'ol!
> [...]
>Obviously, this should go on the Okrand wish list we are
>supposed to compile this coming week.
Yes, please ask him about this. I don't want another futile debate on this
list. jIHvaD SoQDaj yIlI'! yIlIjQo'!
HovqIj