[86849] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Yet another newbie!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl-Filip Faxen)
Fri Nov 13 13:36:07 2009
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:34:01 +0100
From: Karl-Filip Faxen <kff@sics.se>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <1cb7130b0911131008q1eb086aeva9ff7a6eeb6a3929@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Tracy Canfield wrote:
> Since -Hom isn't merely "small", but "minor", perhaps "fine print"
> could be handled as
>
> mu'HomHey
>
> "apparently minor words".
majQa'! vIparHa'qu'!
This would seem to me to be correct since TKD (eg page 49) shows
examples with several rovers, such as {pIHoHvIpbe'qu'}.
/buSwI'
>
> 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'
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
