[86847] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Yet another newbie!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Krenath)
Fri Nov 13 13:27:41 2009
From: Krenath <krenath@gmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <1cb7130b0911131008q1eb086aeva9ff7a6eeb6a3929@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:23:48 -0500
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Or << mu'HomHeymey >> since there is more than one word.
Or perhaps << mu'tlheghHomHeymey >> ... "apparently minor sentences"
On Nov 13, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Tracy Canfield <toastrix@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since -Hom isn't merely "small", but "minor", perhaps "fine print"
> could be handled as
>
> mu'HomHey
>
> "apparently minor words".
>
> 2009/11/13 Karl-Filip Faxen <kff@sics.se>:
>> Tracy Canfield wrote:
>>> 2009/11/13 Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>:
>>>
>>>>> I do not think I got it right, I think it should be:
>>>>> {mu'Hom laDlu'taHviS yeplu'qu'niS}
>>>>
>>>> "One must be very careful when (while) one reads the Dictionary."
>>>>
>>>> Ain't that the truth!
>>>>
>>>> A couple of points:
>>>>
>>>> "Dictionary" is {mu'ghom}. A *{mu'Hom} - {mu'} "word" + {-Hom}
>>>> "diminutive" - would be a "wordlet, minor word, etc." (A
>>>> grammatical "particle" perhaps?)
>>>>
>>>
>>> I took it to mean "fine print".
>>>
>>
>> maj! choyajpu'!
>>
>> /buSwI'
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
