[tlhIngan Hol] veQpu' or veQmey ?

[Daniel Dadap]

> On May 16, 2019, at 08:27, Lieven L. Litaer <levinius at gmx.de> wrote:
> 
>> Am 16.05.2019 um 15:23 schrieb Daniel Dadap:
>> Interesting, in this case I’m not certain but I’m tempted to go with {-wI'}: “light capable of language”.
> 
> Well, thinking more philosophically, if I say that "Kahless is my light"
> you're not saying that that light you talk about is capable of language.
> Kahless is, but the light which he represents is not. It's still just
> "light".

That comment was specifically referring to the literal case where {tamghay yuch qeylIS}. qeylIS doesn’t *represent* light in that case; he *is* light. For the other, metaphorical, case which mayqel brought up I see no reason not to use {-wIj}.