tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 19 19:14:29 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon WOTD: wagh (v)
ja' ...Paul:
>Am I correct in thinking there are distinct connotational difference
>between { lo'laH } and { wagh } (and similarly for { lo'laHbe' } and {
>qutlh }? ie. something could be both valuable and cheap, while something
>could also be expensive and worthless...
Right. {qutlh/wagh{ and {lo'laH/lo'laHbe'} are essentially orthogonal
concepts. How much something costs is not a good indicator of how useful
it is.
>Keep in mind, the root { lo' } means "use". { lo'laH } means valuable in
>terms of "useful", { lo'laHbe' } means worthless in terms of "unusable",
>no?
Not necessarily. {lo'laH} itself is a root; it's not the same idea as the
verb {lo'} plus the suffix {-laH}.
[I was thinking about this while raking leaves this afternoon, and it
occurs to me that it resembles a verbified version of a compound noun {lo'}
"use" + {laH} "ability". This ngerHom is slightly more appealing to me
than the idea that the verb {lo'} might have been a rare "two-way" verb
like {meQ} and {tagh} at one time, but isn't anymore.]
-- ghunchu'wI'