tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 09 15:42:11 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: Vaj'Hom

> I have been following this so please enlighten me. Suv is fight
> and veS is war correct and adding wI is thing that does so then
> SuvwI would then be fighter and veSwI would then be warrior would
> it not.
> In TKD pg.112 vaj is listed as being so,then,thus,in that
> case.(adv) where is it found to mean warrior so that I will know
> in the future.

TKD p185.  Don't forget to check the addendum.

Also read KGT p49-50.  This describes SuvwI', mang, vaj.

Do not forget the glottal stop character [ ' ]; it is a letter of the
alphabet just as much as any other letter.  -wI'.

/veS/ is a noun.  That would force -wI' to be the noun suffix -wI' which
means "my", but only for refering to beings capable of language.
The verb suffix -wI' "thing which does" can not go on a noun.

KGT p46-47 explains  veS, noH, may', vIq, etc.  These are nouns

Verbs (KGT p47):
ghob  "do battle, wage war"; refering to a specific incident.
Qoj  "wage war"; in the general sense, the idea of war.
Suv  "fight"; also listed as specific.

So QojwI' could be someone who wages war (in the general sense, not refering
to a specific war).
SuvwI' IS listed as "warrior" (fighter).

> ould not veSwI Hom work better for warrior.

If we change veS to a verb (Qoj)...
QujwI' Hom  "the bone of someone that wages wars".

With /Hom/ as a separate word it means "bone".

QujwI'Hom ... I immediately get the image of a school yard bully, going
around picking fights.

We also have different degrees of fighting (as verbs), also on p47.


Back to archive top level