[tlhIngan Hol] expressing baby animals (and words for dog)

SuStel sustel at trimboli.name
Wed Dec 1 12:15:12 PST 2021

On 12/1/2021 3:01 PM, De'vID wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 at 18:10, James Landau <savegraduation at yahoo.com> 
> wrote:
>     Anyway, I hadn't thought of saying *vighro'ghu*, *ngavyaw'ghu*,
>     *qovIjghu*, or *bo'Deghghu* before. I remembered reading that -Hom
>     was the standard way to name the young of animals (on this mailing
>     list, I believe). -Hom creates some problems, though: if
>     *SarghHom* is "foal", then how do you say "pony"? I don't know
>     what all of you think, but I think a *SarghHom* would be a pony
>     and a *Sarghghu* would be a foal.
*Sargh*/sark /(analogous to a horse)/
/*Sargh mach*/small sark /(in the same way that a pony is a small breed 
of horse)/
/*Sargh ghu*/baby sark /(in the same way that a foal is an immature horse)

> I'm sure both that a {Qa'Hom} is a different species than a {Qa'} and 
> that the word is indeed {Qa'} + {-Hom}. So I don't think {-Hom} makes 
> the name of the young of animals.

"The translation /titmouse/ is really only an approximation of what this 
word means. A *Qa'Hom* is a small animal considered rather 
insignificant. The word literally means /little *Qa'.*/ A *Qa'* is a 
larger, more dangerous animal. A *Qa'Hom* is not a young *Qa',* but it 
does bear a vague resemblance to its namesake." (KCD)

I feel quite certain that *Qa'Hom* is a lexicalized name. If someone 
really did want to talk about a "minor *Qa',*" whatever that is, they'd 
have to explain, "No no, not actually a *Qa'Hom,* but a minor *Qa'.*"

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20211201/f7f829b0/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list