tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 19 00:14:01 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: SoSwI' vISuchtaHvIS...
From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
> <<qIb lengwI'vaD tlhIngan Hol>>
There's another oft-missed rule. When you have one noun (or noun phrase)
modifying another (i.e., a noun-noun construction), the first part can't
have a Type 5 suffix on it. You can't say */qIb lengwI'vaD tlhIngan Hol/,
just as you can't say */lengwI'vaD Hol/. You should say /qIb lengwI'
tlhIngan Hol/ "galactic traveler's Klingon."
> I believe you. I've never used <<-luH>> myself; there's got to be a reason
> why <<-laH>> and <<-lu'>> are in the same class, even if we don't know the
> precise reason. Okrand *does* say it is used (but bad grammar) in KGT; I
> shouldn't have said "good", but "understandable" (if my Klingon sentence
> above is <<pabna'>> in and of itself).
Out of the fiction of the language, Okrand made those two suffixes of the
same class just to be difficult. It was a totally arbitrary decision, which
he himself regrets.
SuStel
Stardate 3379.0