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

[Robyn Stewart]

jIQochbe'. A betleH'a' is something that is like a betleH but of an importance or size that makes it hardly a betleH anymore. 

Sent from a mobile device through a temporary connection. 

On 2012-01-30, at 11:52, David Trimboli <david at trimboli.name> wrote:

> 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/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
> http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol