tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 10 21:07:05 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Vaj'Hom
- From: "Sangqar (Sean Healy)" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Vaj'Hom
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 01:06:57 +0000
> > TKD, p.21:
> > This suffix [-'a'] indicates that what the noun refers to is bigger,
>more
> > important, or more powerful than it would be without the suffix....
> >
> > This [-Hom] is the opposite of the augmentative suffix. It indicates
>that
> > what the noun refers to is smaller, less important, or less powerful
> > than it would be without the suffix.
> >
> > So you're both right. Even though the members of this list tend not to
>use
> > the bigger/smaller meanings, they are valid, unless subsequent Okrandian
> > canon has outlawed them. Voragh?
>
>You can't take just part of a definition. If a definition has multiple
>words/phrases, you have to blend them all together.
The 'or' in Okrand's phrasing would indicate that you can in this case
(judging by the standard usage of commas in conjunction with 'or' in
American English). As a further indication, consider the idioms {bo'DaghHom
lo'} and {bo'Dagh'a' lo'} and the deifnition for {Qa'Hom} (type of animal
(similar to a {Qa'}, but smaller). These seem to indicate that {-Hom} and
{-'a'} can mean 'small' or 'big', respectively.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com