[tlhIngan Hol] New words from "Miniatur Wunderland"
qurgh lungqIj
qurgh at wizage.net
Tue Apr 2 17:15:57 PDT 2019
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019, 3:57 PM nIqolay Q <niqolay0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Again, it's as if you're looking at the English glosses of a word without
> *-Hom* and the word with *-Hom* and assuming that all the different
> connotations of those English glosses carry over to the Klingon, as if they
> were specific *definitions* instead of just examples of how one might
> translate such a concept.
>
>
I'm not doing this. In fact I go the other way. I search for English
glosses that might match the Klingon after I read it and think about what
it might be, but I know that those are just guesses. The meaning of the
word to an actual Klingon maybe very different from what any Human thinks.
but when I read a word like {naQHom} I think of it as a {naQ} that can be
>> smaller, and/or less important, and/or less powerful. It can be one, it can
>> be all.
>>
>
> So you're saying *naQHom* can mean a *naQ* that is smaller, but not less
> important or less powerful. That's what "and/or" means
>
Yes. I never said it couldn't. I just believe that if it is smaller, it's
not in a way that {mach} would describe it. It's smaller in a "lesser"
sense and not just plain old normal "small".
There is a difference between a {naQHom} and a {naQ mach}. It might be hard
to tell at times, but it's there.
The other issue is that small and big are subjective. What is small or big
to you may not be to me. -Hom and -'a' are not subjective. Something that
is -Hom is -Hom no matter who is speaking.
>
>> Ultimately, this is my point: {-Hom} doesn't equal {mach}, and {-'a'}
>> doesn't equal {tIn}, there is much more to the suffixes than those two
>> words.
>>
>
> *-Hom* isn't synonymous with *mach* and no one said it was. *-Hom* can
> refer to
>
Yes they did. Lieven started off by saying that {targhHom} just means
"small targ". I disagreed, because {targh mach} is just a "small targ". A
{targhHom} is different from a {targh mach} based on {loDHom} and {be'Hom}
not being "small man" and "small girl". Following that pattern a {targhHom}
should be a young targ.
diminutive aspects of things besides size (such as importance). But *mach*
> *is* one of the notions that can be expressed with *-Hom*, and there are
> examples (*bo'DaghHom, naQHom*) where it appears to be the *only* notion
> expressed with *-Hom*.
>
I choose to believe that it isn't the only notion expressed, that there is
more too it, but that we don't always have enough information to accurately
describe the difference.
qurgh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190402/53ef4a21/attachment-0016.htm>
More information about the tlhIngan-Hol
mailing list