[tlhIngan Hol] Maltz about light

nIqolay Q niqolay0 at gmail.com
Fri Jan 26 13:33:58 PST 2018

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm at kth.se> wrote:

> Dajqu'!
> > (and because there can be photons besides those in the visible light
> > part of the electromagnetic spectrum)
> I wonder if this should be taken to mean that {tamghay} normally refers
> only to visible light, rather than the full EM spectrum. Or perhaps it's
> context-dependent, like it is in English (with the everyday definition
> being just the visible parts while within many scientific fields it'd be
> the full spectrum).

​Based on the context and the usual meanings of the English glosses, it
seems likely that {tamghay} normally means visible light.

Lieven: Roughly speaking, it seems like {wovtaHghach} can be taken to mean
"the state of having a lot of {tamghay}". Is this correct?

Did Okrand talk more about the use of {'otlh} for light? Up till now, the
use of {'otlh} in paq'batlh was the only time we had a noun for "light" as
a phenomenon.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20180126/1031ec3b/attachment-0003.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list