tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Oct 29 08:47:40 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: noun suffixes on adj?
On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 20:35:11 -0800 (PST) David Trimboli
<[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
> >I often think that to the Klingon mind, a noun plus adjective becomes
> >a sort of ad-hoc compound, and like a true N+A compound (such as /bIQtIq/),
> >any Type 5 suffixes would come at the end of the whole expression.
>
> The thing is, this doesn't explain why Klingons don't say things like {veng
> tInwIj} for "my big city." There is some syntactic difference between Type
> 5 noun suffixes and other noun suffixes.
Yes. Type 5 defines an alternative function in the sentence.
Except for {-'e'}, all Type 5 suffixes make a noun do something
OTHER than act as subject or object. Subject and object can be
recognized by position in the sentence, and an adjective applied
to a subject or object can similarly be identified by position.
Meanwhile, a noun with Type 5 just gets stuffed at the beginning
of the sentence, and there may be more than one Type 5 noun
there. Suddenly, position information defining the boundaries
between noun clauses can become a problem. That's why it is
better to put the Type 5 suffix on the adjectival verb and not
the noun itself. It more clearly marks the boundary between the
noun phrase and the main clause. It also marks the boundaries
between Type 5 noun clauses, all jammed at the beginning of the
sentence.
No other noun suffix affects the noun's grammatical function in
the sentence, so nothing is gained by moving those suffixes to
the adjectival verbs. In fact, it would just make the sentences
more confusing to have noun suffixes commonly moved to verbs.
It makes perfect sense to move Type 5 noun suffixes and ONLY
Type 5 noun suffixes to adjectival verbs modifying those nouns.
Does this make as much sense to others as it does to me?
> SuStel
> Stardate 98821.7
charghwI' 'utlh