De'vID:
You can usually tell by the relationship of the words in the list to one another. {Haw'} v. "flee, get out" is restrictive, because they overlap in meaning, and {Haw'} is in the intersect. There is a meaning of "flee" which isn't covered by "get out" (e.g., "the changing mists on the mountain side flee [vanish] before the blazing morning sun"). There are meanings of "get out" which isn't covered by "flee" (e.g., "she got out [removed, retrieved] her wallet from her pocket"). The other term is there to restrict the meaning.
This is indeed a nice analysis. De'vID:
AFAIK, {ghargh} has never been used to mean "serpent" in canon, either. Does that mean you'll never use it that way even if you needed a word for "serpent", until it's used that way in canon?
This is something which has troubled me in the past; I've thought of writing about it in this list, but eventually more important questions came up, so I forgot. What I've decided to do, is in case I'm writing something important, I'd say something like {ghargh vIleghpu'; wam rur}. De'vID:
If you think that {'oQqar} can't mean just "root", what do you think the word "root" is doing there in the definition? Why isn't the definition just "tuber"?
I don't know. That's the honest answer. Now, don't misunderstand me. I don't want {'oQqar} to have the restrictrive meaning of "tuber". I never liked the phenomenon of a given word, being excessively narrowed down as far as its meaning is concerned. You presented, strong and valid arguments, and qeylIS knows, I want to believe them. But the problem is that we can't be sure. Thank you though, for taking the time to explain this. You gave me a lot to think about. ~ hjkhjkhkj