tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Apr 19 23:26:44 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: SopDaq
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: SopDaq
- Date: Sun, 20 Apr 97 05:51:42 UT
jatlh peHruS:
> In a message dated 97-04-11 22:37:05 EDT, SuStel writes:
>
> << hat's because it's a noun compound, and was fairly obvious in the
> accompanying context.
>
> > We know that {QongDaq} is canon for "bed."
>
> That's right. We know that because *Okrand* told us. >>
>
> This implies that {Qong} is a Noun, which I cannot find glossed anywhere.
No, it does NOT imply this. It implies, and indeed explicitly states, that
{QongDaq} is a noun. It does not tell us anything at all, nothing whatsoever,
about the derivation of {QongDaq}. It is almost certainly not a noun plus
{-Daq}, because we can also say {QongDaqDaq}.
> So, I suppose it is a Noun for which we do not have a translation.
No. {QongDaq} is a noun for which we have a translation. {Qong} is a verb
for which we have a translation. That's ALL we have. {QongDaq} cannot be
arbitrarily split by you or me, only Okrand can discover its derivation.
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97301.1