tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 29 15:13:41 2013
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Tlhingan-hol] Another clarification: vegh
<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>To add to the "information gleaned at qep'a'", while we were travelling to Fort Mifflin, the topic of the new word {QI} "bridge" came up in conversation in Lawrence's car, and I took the opportunity to ask Marc an associated question. Since we lack a verb for "to go across" in the sense of crossing a river, I've wondered for a while now as to whether {vegh} "go through" might be appropriate. When I asked Marc this, he explained that in order to sensibly talk about {vegh}ing a bridge, the bridge would have to be covered over - that is, some form of {'och}. So basically, it seems that to {vegh} an object, the object must completely encircle the vector of travel. (Marc did also add that it need not be pedantically exact: a meshwork or cage-like object can also be {vegh}ed, so long as the object is still essentially ringlike or tunnel-like.)<br><br>We didn't go into any more detail than that, but it's a clarification of nuance and that's always helpful.<br><br>QeS<br> </div></body>
</html>_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}