tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 27 05:58:46 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: *nuqDaqvo'

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: *nuqDaqvo'
• Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 08:57:45 EDT

In a message dated 2004-07-27 8:35:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[email protected] writes:

> > If TKD didn't explicitly state that {nuqDaq} is {nuq} plus the type 5
> 
> I don't know.
> 
> > noun suffix {-Daq}, I would have no trouble accepting it as a compound 
> > noun, capable of taking any other suffixes.
> 
> --> i.e. cf. e.g. etc. QongDaqDaq
> 
> Quvar

I'm not sure what your point is, but that's the example I was thinking of 
too.  

If {nuqDaq} were a noun without a suffix, then adding {-vo'} would present no 
problem, just as {QongDaqDaq} presents no problem.  But {QongDaq} and 
{nuqDaq} are not comparable.  {QongDaq} is a noun (apparently a compound noun with 
the second element meaning 'site, location') and {nuqDaq} is the question word 
(noun?) {nuq} plus the type 5 noun suffix {-Daq}.  

It seems like a lot of people want {nuqDaqvo'} to be correct.

lay'tel SIvten

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: *nuqDaqvo'
    • From: "Lieven L. Litaer" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: use and purpose of this list.
• Next by Date: Re: *nuqDaqvo'
• Previous by thread: Re: *nuqDaqvo'
• Next by thread: Re: *nuqDaqvo'
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level