tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 11 18:47:44 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: SopDaq
ja' KEN TRAFT:
>There is no mention that <<Qong>> is a noun in TKD. ?Is there?
Nope: {Qong} "sleep (v)" is it.
>Can we assume
>it's a noun because -Daq is attached or must we take QongDaq as a single word.
Nope. Without more evidence regarding the nature of {Qong}, we indeed
can't assume that {QongDaq} is anything but a simple two-syllable noun.
> Or maybe we can assume that -Daq can be a nominalizer?
Huh? {-Daq} is a *noun* suffix; it goes on *nouns*. Nouns don't need
to be nominalized!
>In any event. If QongDaq as a compound work means BED. Something you "sleep
>on" then using the SojDaq analogy would follow that it is a place for food
>either a table or plate rather than a room or "general location". If it were
>a "general location" then QongDaq would be a "general sleeping location"
>rather than "a bed". For such a location Qongpa' would be like a bed room
>and
>Sojpa' would more or less equate to kitchen or "possibly" food court.
Even assuming for argument's sake that {QongDaq} is a compound noun, I
don't follow your reasoning. "Sleep-location" could mean any number of
things, and so can "food-location", but because {QongDaq} is defined as
bed we must define {SojDaq} as "plate" or "table" by analogy? I don't
buy it. You're trying to pry {QongDaq} apart and give a new meaning to
*both* parts -- {Qong} as a noun meaning "sleep", and {Daq} as a noun
meaning "thing on which something happens".
>>>>How about {ghItlhDaq} for "escritoire"?
>Ditto on above use of QongDaq. ghItlhDaq would be more or less like a table,
>desk, or even notepad. ghItlh refers to manuscript which is a hand
>written/typed document. One normally does such writing at a desk or table or
>some such.
Ditto on my complaint that you're warping the meaning of {Daq} "location"
in this line of reasoning.
>If the QongDaq is emphasizing a "sleeping place" as a bed it would
>follow that a "writing place" or "manuscript place" would be a desk, table or
>some such.
That's a mighty big "if" you've got there. It's entirely possible that
{QongDaq} has a more subtle origin than simply a noun-noun compound.
Consider {qa'meH} -- it's emphatically *not* "spirit-bridge", nor does
{nIteb} necessarily have anything to do with "they fill you."
-- ghunchu'wI'