tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 29 04:53:59 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
large and small
In a message dated 12/29/2000 04:01:09 Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
> The basic noun {nagh} means "stone, rock." {nagh'a'} may be translated as
> "boulder." While this is a large stone, {nagh tIn} is the proper way to
> perceive "large stone," a noun modified by an adjective. {nagh'a'} on the
> other hand means a major, eminent, prominent stone. In contrast,
{naghHom}
> may be translated as "pebble." And, the proper way to say small stone is
> {nagh mach}.
>
Also remember that one may speak of {nagh'a' tIn}, {nagh'a' mach}, {naghHom
tIn}, and {naghHom mach}. Naturally, there is probably some semantic overlap
between some of these: A small stone may be a large pebble, and a large
stone may be a small boulder.
The suffixes -'a' and -Hom seem more to indicate not the actual size of noun
referent they are applied to, but rather the specific quality of that
referent, eg. in {nagh'a'}, -'a' doesn't just intensify the {nagh} but rather
its {nagh}ness, its quality of being a {nagh}.
(It's been mentioned here before that this is precisely the problem some
people have with the Esperanto suffixes -eg- and -et-.)
lay'tel SIvten