tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 11 16:43:12 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: nom ghel, nom jang

Lieven L. Litaer (Quvar) ([email protected])

• From: Lieven L. Litaer (Quvar) <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: nom ghel, nom jang
• Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:10:43 +0100
• In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

Am 08.02.2004 21:26:12, schrieb "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>:

>From: "Lieven L. Litaer (Quvar)" <[email protected]>
>> jISovnIS
>> qugh mu''e'
>> wot DIp ghap
>> tlho' Quvar

>Am I the only one who cringes whenever people stick {mu'} in apposition with
>the word in question?

I always do it like this, even though I'm not sure if it's correct.
My use is based on the following ideas:

1. 
{DIp 'oHbe' Duj'e'}. "A ship is not a noun"
But the word for "ship" can be a noun, isn't it?
{DIp 'oHbej mu''e'. DIp 'oH Duj mu''e'}
"The word is a noun. The word ship is a noun. "

2.
I think the word {mu'} should follow the word in question, just like a title or rank does
{qImla' HoD} "captain Kimla"
{Duj mu'} "word ship"

3.
If that is soup, then one can still see it as a noun-noun construction:

like {qImla' pong} "kimla's name",
{Duj mu'} "the word of ship" or more fluent "the word for <ship>"
[the word that stands for the idea of "ship"]

4.
I also think we should not construct things like {Duj Delbogh qech 'oSqu'bogh mu''e'} or the like.

Quvar.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: nom ghel, nom jang
    • From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: nom ghel, nom jang
    • From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: DCKL translation question: argueing arguments
• Next by Date: Re: DCKL translation question: argueing arguments
• Prev by thread: Re: DCKL translation question: argueing arguments
• Next by thread: Re: nom ghel, nom jang
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level