tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 23 13:00:23 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: klbc: abstract nouns
- From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: RE: klbc: abstract nouns
- Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:59:15 -0400 (EDT)
ja' ter'eS:
<<Nick Nicholas (I think) used to suggest phrases using {Dotlh}, eg. {Dotlh
Doq} 'red status = redness".>>
po'bej ghaH, 'ach lo'vam vIlajbe'. Doqbe' 'Iw Dotlh. Doq 'Iw'e'.
Nick's skill with the vocabulary is impressive, but he sometimes has a subtly
different handle on the grammar than many of the other skilled speakers. I
myself don't agree with this use of "status" at all. It is not blood's status
which is red. The blood itself is red.
The HolQeD interview in which Okrand clarified how to use {-ghach} tells us
that it's perfectly acceptable to say something like {DoqtaHghach} if you
really need to talk about "redness" itself. But as a matter of stylistic and
perhaps even dialectical preference among the long-time members of the list,
phrasing the idea with a verb instead of twisting it into a noun is highly
encouraged.
-- ghunchu'wI'