tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 13 12:34:27 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC chepqu' ne' QonoS
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC chepqu' ne' QonoS
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:28:02 -0400
>ghItlh Voragh:
>
> >{taghwI'} is a "beginner, someone/something that begins"; if anything,
> >something that starts something else should be *{taghmoHwI'} <g>.
>
>That sounds like someone who makes you start, but not "start an engine".
>
> >already have {chu'wI'} "trigger", derived from {chu'} "engage, activate,
> >turn on (a device)" from PK:
>
>I agree, {chu'wI'} is a better word for this.
>
>But the verb {tagh} can be both transitive and intransitive; i.e. you can
>"begin" and you can "begin
>a process":
>
>PK:
> {taghbej mu'qaD veS}
> "Curse-warfare has definitely begun"
>
>TKW:
> {Qu' DataghDI' 'aqtu' mellota' je yIqaw}
> "When you begin a mission, remember Aktuh and Melota."
I disagree that /chu'wI'/ is necessarily better. It depends on your
meaning. If you're someone who's starting a mission, you're a /taghwI'/
"one who starts," not a /chu'wI'/ "one who activates." You don't activate a
mission.
Further, both /taghwI'/ and /taghmoHwI'/ are theoretically valid words,
given the known uses of /tagh/.
SuStel
Stardate 3448.9
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail