tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 10 02:18:14 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Re: qechmey vIHutlh
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Re: qechmey vIHutlh
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 02:17:04 -0800
At 16:22 98-02-09 -0800, qoror wrote:
}ghItlh charghwI'
}>I think you reach for
}>the suffix {-Ha'} prematurely without seeking better vocabulary
}>choices. We need {-Ha'} to cover the many verbs we don't have,
}>but using it to create a synonym for an existing word feels odd
}>to me.
}
}When one [I think] is acqainted with Klingon suffixes, there is an urge to
}use them. I suspect Okrand made the Klingon/English side first. Once when
}I was writing down {DIv}, it occured to me that {DIvHa'} ought to mean
}innocent. It wasn't until later that I realized that there existed the
}word {chun}.
}This is probably the reason for {HeghmoH}. It sounds like a likely impulse
}thing to do, considering {-moH}. But the repercussions have already been
}witnessed.
I agree that X-Ha' is a bad way to form opposites, but I thing HeghmoH i a
lovely little irregularity that adds flavour to the language.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian