[96825] in tlhIngan-Hol
[Tlhingan-hol] Another clarification: vegh
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick)
Mon Jul 29 18:13:53 2013
From: Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:13:26 +1000
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
--===============9145397165945105518==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_797e2540-c331-4bd8-a949-09e91cc39a5f_"
--_797e2540-c331-4bd8-a949-09e91cc39a5f_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To add to the "information gleaned at qep'a'"=2C while we were travelling t=
o Fort Mifflin=2C the topic of the new word {QI} "bridge" came up in conver=
sation in Lawrence's car=2C and I took the opportunity to ask Marc an assoc=
iated question. Since we lack a verb for "to go across" in the sense of cro=
ssing a river=2C I've wondered for a while now as to whether {vegh} "go thr=
ough" might be appropriate. When I asked Marc this=2C he explained that in =
order to sensibly talk about {vegh}ing a bridge=2C the bridge would have to=
be covered over - that is=2C some form of {'och}. So basically=2C it seems=
that to {vegh} an object=2C the object must completely encircle the vector=
of travel. (Marc did also add that it need not be pedantically exact: a me=
shwork or cage-like object can also be {vegh}ed=2C so long as the object is=
still essentially ringlike or tunnel-like.)
We didn't go into any more detail than that=2C but it's a clarification of =
nuance and that's always helpful.
QeS
=
--_797e2540-c331-4bd8-a949-09e91cc39a5f_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px=3B
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt=3B
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'><div dir=3D'ltr'>To add to the "information glean=
ed at qep'a'"=2C while we were travelling to Fort Mifflin=2C the topic of t=
he new word {QI} "bridge" came up in conversation in Lawrence's car=2C and =
I took the opportunity to ask Marc an associated question. Since we lack a =
verb for "to go across" in the sense of crossing a river=2C I've wondered f=
or a while now as to whether {vegh} "go through" might be appropriate. When=
I asked Marc this=2C he explained that in order to sensibly talk about {ve=
gh}ing a bridge=2C the bridge would have to be covered over - that is=2C so=
me form of {'och}. So basically=2C it seems that to {vegh} an object=2C the=
object must completely encircle the vector of travel. (Marc did also add t=
hat it need not be pedantically exact: a meshwork or cage-like object can a=
lso be {vegh}ed=2C so long as the object is still essentially ringlike or t=
unnel-like.)<br><br>We didn't go into any more detail than that=2C but it's=
a clarification of nuance and that's always helpful.<br><br>QeS<br> =
</div></body>
</html>=
--_797e2540-c331-4bd8-a949-09e91cc39a5f_--
--===============9145397165945105518==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============9145397165945105518==--
