[tlhIngan Hol] the problem with {naw'wat}

[Will Martin]

If a remote place were large enough, you might find something to do there, at which point you’d have no reason to say to yourself, “Now, what?"

> On Sep 12, 2021, at 1:57 PM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> naw'wat (n) remote, small, desolate place 
> 
> And I wonder.. Why does a remote, desolate place necessarily need to be small? Aren't there remote, desolate places of the "big" kind?
> 
> So why would 'oqranD give a word, which on one hand functions as a tool to express ourselves further, but at the same time tie our hands restricting its' meaning like this?
> 
> If 'oqranD had defined {naw'wat} as "remote, desolate place", and that's it, then it would be easy to describe it further as "big" or "small", and only if the size of the place was actually of any significance. But now we can't. 
> 
> So we're stuck with a word that only works one third of the time:
> 
> 1/3 remote, desolate place which is big 
> 1/3 remote, desolate place which is small 
> 1/3 remote, desolate place which is average
> 
> ~ Dana'an
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org>
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20210912/d80db797/attachment-0016.htm>