Re: {tIq} and {run}

[Quvar valer <levinius@gmx.de>]

Am 30.10.2002 15:57:37, schrieb "Agnieszka Solska" <agnpau1@hotmail.com>:

>Can {tIq} and {run} be regarded as a pair of antonyms?

No.

Now I probably need to prove this :-)

1. Marc Okrand made most of the pairs as real pairs, but {tIq} and {run} appeared in two different 
books. This is not quite convincing though.

2. 
{tIq} is "be long, lengthy (of an object)"
----> This descriibes something that has a length. 
Canon example: 
  "river": {bIQtIq} "long water"
   {tajtIq} "long knife" 
   (a knife with a particularly long blade that is used almost as if it were a sword)

{run} is "be short (in stature)"
----> This descriibes something that has a height, a stature.
Canon example, KGT 152: 
   "There are a number of standard counterparts to {Hom} [slang for weakling], such as pujwI' 
(weakling), langwI' (one who is thin), and runwI' (one who is short)"

So, a {runwI'} is obviously a "shorty", a person who is not tall.
That's not the antonym of being long.

Quvar
Beginners' Grammarian
  ghojwI'pu'wI' vISaH