tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 19 10:57:10 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

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

Scott Willis ([email protected])

• From: "Scott Willis" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: Use of {-wI'} on nouns (was Re: Quote)
• Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:02:15 -0500
• References: <ZY2XJID741VWQB0YTWR51D975F0822Y.3fe325cb@quvar>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lieven L. Litaer (Quvar)" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: Use of {-wI'} on nouns (was Re: Quote)


> jaj 18.12.2003 rep 23:22:45, ghItlh "Scott Willis"
<[email protected]>:
> >Now my question: Did {-wI'} become a noun suffix while I wasn't looking?

> Quvar 'utlh:
> You serious? {-wI'} is still a verb-suffix, and it doesn't work with nouns

Right, got that. I was wondering if it had also been revealed as a noun
suffix, as a general rule. I didn't mean to imply that it had done a
complete switchover.

> Quvar 'utlh:
> Somebody mentioned {QongDaq}, where apparently a noun suffix is attached
to a verb. In this case, I
> would also claim this to be a shortened form of - most likely - {QongmeH
Daq} "place to sleep".  (as
> happened with qa'meH)

FWIW, this is the "explanation" I like the most so far. That {jonwI'},
{chamwI'}, et al were originally phrases uttered often, eventually
shortened, became common enough to be slang, then finally accepted as
correct (like {mevyap!}).

--ngabwI'
Beginners' Grammarian,
Klingon Language Institute
http://kli.org/
HovpoH 700933.6

• References:
  • Re: Use of {-wI'} on nouns (was Re: Quote)
    • From: Lieven L. Litaer (Quvar) <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: {Hov leng} canon?
• Next by Date: Re: {mugh}
• Prev by thread: Re: Use of {-wI'} on nouns (was Re: Quote)
• Next by thread: Re: {mugh}
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level