[Tlhingan-hol] qIHpu'ghach wa'DIch: 'ay' cha'

[David Trimboli]

On 1/30/2012 2:36 PM, De'vID jonpIn wrote:
>
> loghaD:
>  > qeylIS betleH would probably be held as a betleH'a', but it's not
> called qeylIS betleH'a'; it receives its grandeur from being prefixed by
> "qeylIS". If you were to refer to qeylIS betleH'a', I'd assume you were
> talking about the greatest of his many betleHmey.
>
> How would you interpret the following?
> {qeylIS mIv'a'}
> {qeylIS Daqtagh'a' DuQwI'Hommey}
> {lopno' 'uQ'a'}
>
> I don't think {qeylIS betleH} is a {betleH'a'} merely by virtue of being
> associated with Kahless, unless it was already considered a {betleH'a'}
> by itself.  Kahless can carry a {tajHom}, just like anybody else.

{-'a'} and {-Hom} tend to be abused around here, much like {-ghach}. 
Avoid using them unless your usage is canonical, or if you know beyond a 
doubt that you've got it right. Otherwise, they're likely to be 
"hindsight suffixes": they make sense as a translation only if you know 
the original source text.

I have no idea what a {betleH'a'} would be. It's not a {betleH}, and 
it's not just an "important {betleH}." If your meaning would be served 
by an adjectivally acting verb, it doesn't need {-'a'} or {-Hom}.

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/