tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 19 09:32:46 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Use of {-wI'} on nouns (was Re: Quote)

Steven Boozer ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

ngabwI':
> > We have a noun {jonwI'} "engineer"

Voragh:
> >> Then we have a better word:  {chamwI'} "technician", someone who
> >> works with technology {cham}.

ngabwI':
> > And I know of {De'wI'} "computer".
> >
> > Now my question: Did {-wI'} become a noun suffix while I wasn't
> > looking?  (One that apparently means "someone or something that
> > works with X"?) Has this been stated as a general rule, or is it
> > still up to MO to decide what nouns can take {-wI'}?

Rather than invent a new noun suffix *{-wI'} - one Glen Proechel was 
notoriously fond of using in the materials he published through his 
Interstellar Language School - the simplest explanation is that {De'wI'}, 
{jonwI'} and {chamwI'} are derived from the unattested, obsolete or Old 
Klingon verbs *{De'}, *{jon} and *{cham}.

Keep in mind that the ca. 3500 words listed in TKD and KGT are only part of 
the vocabulary of "modern" Klingon and, as in all languages, some words 
become obsolete, often leaving odd derivatives behind.  (E.g. English 
*disheveled*.)

Philip:
>I'd file it with {QongDaq} "bed" as words that we can't create ourselves
>(in this case, it's a kind of compound noun, but the first component is
>otherwise known only as a verb).

This is an old - and still unresolved - problem.  Marc Okrand wrote on 
startrek.klingon (June 1997):

   {QongDaq} "could be a normal compound noun"--but the important word
   there is {could}: It could be a compound noun IF both {Qong} and {Daq}
   are nouns. We know that {Daq} "place" is a noun; we know that {Qong}
   is a verb ("sleep"); we don't know that {Qong} (presumably "sleep" or
   "sleeping") is a noun. Maybe it is--but until we see it as a noun in
   its own right (that is, in a place in a sentence where nouns occur
   and in a construction where it's not attached to {Daq}) will we know
   for sure. Until that time, it's a good hypothesis, but not a done deal
   ... a word like {QongDaq} is evidence that at an earlier stage in the
   language, there may have been a noun {Qong} (meaning "sleep" or some-
   thing similar). Or maybe there was a verb suffix {-Daq} meaning "place
   where one does X". On the other hand, you may have uncovered evidence
   that there is currently a noun {Qong}--it just hasn't been attested
   anywhere else yet, so we should keep our eyes peeled. But without
   further evidence, it's a guess.

This suggests that yet another option WRT {De'wI'} et al. is that there was 
a *old* noun suffix *{-wI'} which is no longer productive in the "modern" 
language.

But as Okrand wrote, "without further evidence, it's a guess."



-- 
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons

Back to archive top level