[86853] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Yet another newbie!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Fri Nov 13 21:50:36 2009
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:48:48 -0500
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <1cb7130b0911131818yff3cca1p561115f8d5fc41a5@mail.gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Tracy Canfield wrote:
> 2009/11/13 Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>:
>> Tracy:
>>> Since -Hom isn't merely "small", but "minor", perhaps "fine
>>> print" could be handled as mu'HomHey "apparently minor words".
>> Fine print isn't necessarily {-Hom} "minor". In fact, it's often
>> more important than the regular print! That's the very reason
>> people use fine print, after all.
>>
> Hence the -Hey ...
Except for {-qu'} and {-be'}, suffixes don't apply to each other.
{-HomHey} doesn't become "apparently minor"; it means "apparent, minor
(something)."
I found {mu'Hom} for "fine print" to be unintelligible. Like Voragh, I
read that as "wordlet," whatever that means. Maybe it might have
something to do with "sweet nothings."
<Kermoy, qoghwIjDaq mu'Hom tItlhup.>
<Hung yaS.>
<mu'Hom 'oH Hung yaS'e'?!>
<ghobe'; nutlha'qu' Hung yaS!>
> Since verbs used adjectivally can't take suffixes other than -qu,
Actually, they can. That rule is stated in TKD, but since then we've
seen adjectival verbs with {-Ha'} and {-be'} as well.
--
SuStel
tlhIngan Hol MUSH
http://trimboli.name/mush
