On 4/2/2019 3:57 PM, nIqolay Q wrote:
*-Hom* isn't synonymous with *mach* and no one said it was. *-Hom* can refer to diminutive aspects of things besides size (such as importance). But *mach* /is/ one of the notions that can be expressed with *-Hom*, and there are examples (*bo'DaghHom, naQHom*) where it appears to be the /only/ notion expressed with *-Hom*.
I'm not going to go so far as qurgh in declaring the lack of only-smallness of *-Hom,* but I do think *bo'Dagh* may be a special case rendering it unsuitable as a data point here. *bo'Dagh'a'* and *bo'DaghHom* are both introduced in KGT as words used to represent exaggerating and trivializing, respectively. It's the *-'a'* and the *-Hom* that contain these meanings, not the *bo'Dagh.* Although the expression is fixed, the fact that it's a spoon is really irrelevant: if the expressions had been *taj'a' lo'*/use a big knife/ and *tajHom lo'*/use a little knife,/ the meanings would be just as clear. So the *-'a'* and the *-Hom* really do mean something more here than just /big/ and /little./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name