[tlhIngan Hol] How would you express "root of a tree" ?

[mayqel qunen'oS]

De'vID:
> You can usually tell by the relationship of the words in the list to one another.
> {Haw'} v. "flee, get out" is restrictive, because they overlap in meaning, and {Haw'} is in the intersect. There is a
> meaning of "flee" which isn't covered by "get out" (e.g., "the changing mists on the mountain side flee [vanish]
> before the blazing morning sun"). There are meanings of "get out" which isn't covered by "flee" (e.g., "she got out
> [removed, retrieved] her wallet from her pocket"). The other term is there to restrict the meaning.

This is indeed a nice analysis.

De'vID:
> AFAIK, {ghargh} has never been used to mean "serpent" in canon, either. Does that mean you'll never use it that
> way even if you needed a word for "serpent", until it's used that way in canon?

This is something which has troubled me in the past; I've thought of
writing about it in this list, but eventually more important questions
came up, so I forgot.

What I've decided to do, is in case I'm writing something important,
I'd say something like {ghargh vIleghpu'; wam rur}.

De'vID:
> If you think that {'oQqar} can't mean just "root", what do you think
> the word "root" is doing there in the definition? Why isn't the definition just "tuber"?

I don't know. That's the honest answer.

Now, don't misunderstand me. I don't want {'oQqar} to have the
restrictrive meaning of "tuber". I never liked the phenomenon of a
given word, being excessively narrowed down as far as its meaning is
concerned.

You presented, strong and valid arguments, and qeylIS knows, I want to
believe them. But the problem is that we can't be sure.

Thank you though, for taking the time to explain this. You gave me a
lot to think about.

~ hjkhjkhkj