tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 20 22:43:23 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: SopDaq
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: SopDaq
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 97 05:42:21 UT
From: [email protected] on behalf of Q'ISt'ova (Eliseo d'Annunzio, Esq.)
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 1997 9:30 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: SopDaq
> On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, William H. Martin wrote:
>
> > NO! NO! A THOUSAND TIMES NO! How many times do we have to
> > explain that QongDaq is a noun because Okrand says it is a noun
> > and Qong is NOT a noun UNTIL Okrand says it is a noun?
>
> Exactly, we know that Qong is "to sleep" (verb), and it has remained this
> way since Okrand made it so... -Daq is a locative designating
> position/place, and so naturally QongDaq is a position/place one would
> execute the verb/action "to sleep", ie a bed.
NO!!! {-Daq} is a NOUN suffix. It goes on NOUNS! {Qong} is a verb. It
cannot take noun suffixes!! {QongDaq} is a NOUN. WE DON'T KNOW HOW IT WAS
CREATED, OR IF WE CAN MAKE OTHER THINGS LIKE IT. Therefore, don't do it.
> But I doubt we could go any
> further than that... Like we have many times stated, tlhIngan Hol is not
> the same as English.
We couldn't even go that far. {QongDaq} is a distinct noun. That's as far as
we can go.
> > Will this ever sink in?
>
> We can only hope...
Obviously it hasn't . . .
> > QongDaq is not a noun plus the locative
> > suffix. It is not a compound noun formed with the noun for
> > "place". QongDaq is a two syllable noun meaning bed. PERIOD.
> > That is ALL that it is. Attempts to analyze it based upon the
> > individual syllables is massively misguided. Yes, you can see
> > patterns in it. No, those patterns are not valid observations.
>
> As I said before... Though not in so many words...
Oh? Read charghwI''s first line in the above paragraph again. "QongDaq is
not a noun plus the locative suffix." But you said it was! It isn't of
course.
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97303.9