tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 08 11:52:43 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Re[6]: ranks and titles (was Suppletion)
>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 11:21:56 -0800
>From: [email protected]
>On Wed, 8 Nov 1995 ~mark wrote:
>>Are there any examples of *noun* compounds at all where the sex comes
>>first? I should think a canon example would suffice in the absence of
>>anything better.
><major snip>
>>Of course, it's also possible that "puqbe'" is a fossilized form from a
>>time when the ordering was different, but in the absence of ANY clear
>>examples to the contrary, it's all we have to go on.
>I think that could be it. <puqbe'> (and <puqloD>) seem to be one of the few
>compound nouns where the second noun describes the first. i.e. type of child.
>Almost all the others, that I can find, are the opposite. <jolpa'> for
>example, its a type of room, not a type of transport beam.
*blink*. That's really an excellent point. Klingon noun-structures (N-N
and compounds) tend to be head-last, making "puqbe'" primarily a "be'"
which is associated with "puq". By the reasoning I had with "ta'be'" as
Royal Consort and "be'ta'" as Queen Regnant, a "puqbe'" would more
logically be a female associated with the child, maybe something like a
ghojmoq, while a *be'puq would be a "female child" (while a "be' puq" would
presumably be a child of a woman... and who isn't?) You have something
here.
>One thing to think about. It could be that <puqbe'> isn't a compound noun at
>all. Now, wouldn't that really mess things up. {{;-) >
That's starting to look possible to *me*, anyway.
~mark