[Tlhingan-hol] Another clarification: vegh

[Rohan Fenwick]

To add to the "information gleaned at qep'a'", while we were travelling to Fort Mifflin, the topic of the new word {QI} "bridge" came up in conversation in Lawrence's car, 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, I've wondered for a while now as to whether {vegh} "go through" might be appropriate. When I asked Marc this, he explained that in order to sensibly talk about {vegh}ing a bridge, the bridge would have to be covered over - that is, some form of {'och}. So basically, it seems that to {vegh} an object, the object must completely encircle the vector of travel. (Marc did also add that it need not be pedantically exact: a meshwork or cage-like object can also be {vegh}ed, so long as the object is still essentially ringlike or tunnel-like.)

We didn't go into any more detail than that, but it's a clarification of nuance and that's always helpful.

QeS
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20130730/f89db0b4/attachment.html>