[tlhIngan Hol] using chegh without an object

De'vID de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com
Thu Feb 18 23:10:46 PST 2021

On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 at 18:41, Will Martin <willmartin2 at mac.com> wrote:

> So, when Okrand tries to give a gloss definition for {chegh}, he has to
> add the word “to” to the gloss. {chegh} doesn’t mean “return”. It means
> “return to”.

{chegh} is listed as just "return" in TKD (in both K-E and E-K sides), and
also glossed as just "return" in the body of KGT. The definition "return
(to)" in the KLI new words list was obviously added to distinguish it from
{tatlh} "return (something)" when that word was revealed, presumably by
whomever was the maintainer of the list at the time. The "(to)" is there to
distinguish the meaning of "return" where the subject is going back to a
previous location (which is {chegh}), vs. "return" where the subject is
putting the object back to where something belongs (which is {tatlh}).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20210219/92b96a84/attachment-0005.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list