<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/12/2021 8:03 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cKQw8B3f4+c9x_9Gq9uyba=wR4UmmNb=jbr-nTjT5L+Bw@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I think that the noun {ghItlh} has the meaning of "handwritten text on
a paper, scroll, parchment", because of the sentence {ghItlh
vIghItlhta'bogh DalaD'a'?}.
Since the verb {ghItlh} means "engrave, incise, mark (upon), write",
then when this verb has the noun {ghItlh} as an object, then
seemingly/apparently the noun {ghItlh} must be something physical
(e.g. paper, scroll, parchment, etc..). I'd understand the noun
{ghItlh} as something referring to the text, if the above Ca'Non
sentence was instead {ghItlh vIqonta'bogh DalaD'a'?}.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Two things here. First, while the sentence <b>ghItlh
vIghItlhta'bogh DalaD'a'</b> does suggest that the <b>ghItlh</b>
being asked about is physical, that doesn't prove that every <b>ghItlh</b>
must be physical. I agree that the verb and the noun being the
same is strongly suggestive, but that isn't <i>proof.</i> We say
we <i>write</i> when we type into our computers, after all, and
we call the results of these actions <i>documents.</i> I don't
know how far the word <b>ghItlh</b> stretches.<br>
</p>
<p>Second, we must remember that when <b>ghItlh vIghItlhta'bogh
DalaD'a'</b> was written Okrand hadn't yet come up with the
notion that <b>qon</b> was used for composition. (If he had, he
left no evidence of this.) So we have to read the sentence with a
little sensitivity to its intended meaning, and not jump too
quickly to the conclusion that he was absolutely not talking about
composition. By the later rule this sentence might be used for <i>Will
you read my printout?</i><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>