On Tue, Apr 2, 2019, 3:57 PM nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
Again, it's as if you're looking at the English glosses of a word without *-Hom* and the word with *-Hom* and assuming that all the different connotations of those English glosses carry over to the Klingon, as if they were specific *definitions* instead of just examples of how one might translate such a concept.
I'm not doing this. In fact I go the other way. I search for English glosses that might match the Klingon after I read it and think about what it might be, but I know that those are just guesses. The meaning of the word to an actual Klingon maybe very different from what any Human thinks. but when I read a word like {naQHom} I think of it as a {naQ} that can be
smaller, and/or less important, and/or less powerful. It can be one, it can be all.
So you're saying *naQHom* can mean a *naQ* that is smaller, but not less important or less powerful. That's what "and/or" means
Yes. I never said it couldn't. I just believe that if it is smaller, it's not in a way that {mach} would describe it. It's smaller in a "lesser" sense and not just plain old normal "small". There is a difference between a {naQHom} and a {naQ mach}. It might be hard to tell at times, but it's there. The other issue is that small and big are subjective. What is small or big to you may not be to me. -Hom and -'a' are not subjective. Something that is -Hom is -Hom no matter who is speaking.
Ultimately, this is my point: {-Hom} doesn't equal {mach}, and {-'a'} doesn't equal {tIn}, there is much more to the suffixes than those two words.
*-Hom* isn't synonymous with *mach* and no one said it was. *-Hom* can refer to
Yes they did. Lieven started off by saying that {targhHom} just means "small targ". I disagreed, because {targh mach} is just a "small targ". A {targhHom} is different from a {targh mach} based on {loDHom} and {be'Hom} not being "small man" and "small girl". Following that pattern a {targhHom} should be a young targ. 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 choose to believe that it isn't the only notion expressed, that there is more too it, but that we don't always have enough information to accurately describe the difference. qurgh