tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat May 22 22:05:32 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: paghHu'/paghleS

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: paghHu'/paghleS
• Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 01:04:48 EDT

In a message dated 2004-05-22 12:33:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[email protected] writes:

> I don't like that you
> *gave it a novel meaning* in the first place.  If it already has an obvious
> meaning (which you admit that it does), you're stepping out of bounds as a
> student of the language and taking on the role of creator when you "give" a
> word an unobvious meaning.  

I overstated when I said that I gave the words a novel meaning.  I pointed 
out the OBVIOUS meanings of these latent words.  

TKD states that {pagh} is a numeral when it means 'zero'.

Everybody seems agreed that the 'day' words mean "today".  Words with {Hu'} 
can't have a future meaning, and words with {leS} can't have a past meaning.  
Put the two together and you have words like {paghHu'} and {paghleS}.  Whether 
I say that's what they mean or not, that IS what they mean.  Okrand has given 
us the words AND the grammar, and this is the result.

lay'tel SIvten

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: paghHu'/paghleS
    • From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: paghHu'/paghleS
• Next by Date: yem
• Previous by thread: manong'a' (was Re: paghHu'/paghleS)
• Next by thread: Re: paghHu'/paghleS
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level