tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 13 10:35:28 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Yet another newbie!

Karl-Filip Faxen (kff@sics.se)



Tracy Canfield wrote:
> Since -Hom isn't merely "small", but "minor", perhaps "fine print"
> could be handled as
> 
> mu'HomHey
> 
> "apparently minor words".

majQa'! vIparHa'qu'!

This would seem to me to be correct since TKD (eg page 49) shows 
examples with several rovers, such as {pIHoHvIpbe'qu'}.

   /buSwI'


> 
> 2009/11/13 Karl-Filip Faxen <kff@sics.se>:
> 
>>Tracy Canfield wrote:
>>
>>>2009/11/13 Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I do not think I got it right, I think it should be:
>>>>> {mu'Hom laDlu'taHviS yeplu'qu'niS}
>>>>
>>>>"One must be very careful when (while) one reads the Dictionary."
>>>>
>>>>Ain't that the truth!
>>>>
>>>>A couple of points:
>>>>
>>>>"Dictionary" is {mu'ghom}.  A *{mu'Hom} - {mu'} "word" + {-Hom} "diminutive" - would be a "wordlet, minor word, etc."  (A grammatical "particle" perhaps?)
>>>>
>>>
>>>I took it to mean "fine print".
>>>
>>
>>maj! choyajpu'!
>>
>>  /buSwI'
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 







Back to archive top level