tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 11 13:22:32 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Re: qechmey vIHutlh
ghIlth Qov :
> 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
Sulughbej. ngeDmo' x-Ha' vIlo'taH. reH Qu'mey ngeD vInej, 'ach jIghojmeH
qaDmey
vInejnIS.HovqIj
>