On 12/1/2021 3:01 PM, De'vID wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 at 18:10, James Landau <savegraduation@yahoo.com> wrote:
Anyway, I hadn't thought of saying *vighro'ghu*, *ngavyaw'ghu*, *qovIjghu*, or *bo'Deghghu* before. I remembered reading that -Hom was the standard way to name the young of animals (on this mailing list, I believe). -Hom creates some problems, though: if *SarghHom* is "foal", then how do you say "pony"? I don't know what all of you think, but I think a *SarghHom* would be a pony and a *Sarghghu* would be a foal.
*Sargh*/sark /(analogous to a horse)/ /*Sargh mach*/small sark /(in the same way that a pony is a small breed of horse)/ /*Sargh ghu*/baby sark /(in the same way that a foal is an immature horse)
I'm sure both that a {Qa'Hom} is a different species than a {Qa'} and that the word is indeed {Qa'} + {-Hom}. So I don't think {-Hom} makes the name of the young of animals.
"The translation /titmouse/ is really only an approximation of what this word means. A *Qa'Hom* is a small animal considered rather insignificant. The word literally means /little *Qa'.*/ A *Qa'* is a larger, more dangerous animal. A *Qa'Hom* is not a young *Qa',* but it does bear a vague resemblance to its namesake." (KCD) I feel quite certain that *Qa'Hom* is a lexicalized name. If someone really did want to talk about a "minor *Qa',*" whatever that is, they'd have to explain, "No no, not actually a *Qa'Hom,* but a minor *Qa'.*" -- SuStel http://trimboli.name