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