tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 02 05:26:00 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: 'e' / about
- From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: 'e' / about
- Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 23:25:13 +1000
- Bcc:
jIghItlhpu':
>Now, you realise that {-'e'} is a Type 5 suffix, and therefore can't appear
>on the first noun of a noun-noun construct. That's clear from your
>response.
mujang weQqul:
>please explain this to me in more detail and give examples. qatlho'!
Well, it's pretty simple: You can't put a Type 5 suffix on the first noun of
a noun-noun construction, generally because such things don't make any
sense:
{Duj HoD} "the captain of the ship, ship's captain"
*{DujDaq HoD} "the captain of in the ship"
*{DujvaD HoD} "the captain of for the ship"
*{Dujmo' HoD} "the captain of because of the ship"
*{Dujvo' HoD} "the captain of from the ship"
This is legal in some languages, but not in Klingon.
It's not so easy to show that {Duj'e' HoD} is illegal, because in English
the translation just looks like you're emphasising something. But since
{-'e'} is a Type 5 suffix, it can't go on the first noun of these
constructions. The way I like to think of it is that the first noun already
HAS a suffix, but a null one. I'll explain:
When we say "he hits it", we say {qIp}: the prefix for third person singular
subject and object is a zero prefix, so we basically have {[zero]-qIp}. In
the same way, think of the construction {Duj HoD} "ship's captain" as
{Duj-[zero] HoD}, where the zero suffix means "of". Now since this zero
suffix is also Type 5, you can't have {-'e'} on that same noun.
Summary: You can't have a possessing noun and {-'e'} it too. :) If you want
more examples, I'll be happy to try and provide some.
Savan.
QeS lagh
_________________________________________________________________
Get Extra Storage in 10MB, 25MB, 50MB and 100MB options now! Go to
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-au&page=hotmail/es2