tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 21 04:25:40 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "type 0" suffixes
- From: Shane MiQogh <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: "type 0" suffixes
- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 04:24:55 -0800 (PST)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=aVtG8ftOUt6HPnJrxGc90NI2dXM+fVqeZomiQt2pV6HZNU1A7f7EqoBoThMWQVSOl/t2auug+mqIb47JHsH3BiJSfs4RFnWMbebFjFfJ78Ix26Y+42Toby13BDcr5cYa5+SXr+rG5DgjKgx9muOoNFRL04FRmkOsROnhPKCbhEE= ;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
Meh, i just get this picture in my head of marc's personality hiding type 0 suffixes just to come up with new words all the time just to make us say "wooooow". Personally, with that picture of him in my head, i doubt he'd release the info.
QeS 'utlh <[email protected]> wrote: ghItlhpu' Shane MiQogh, ja':
> The so far identified type 0 suffixes:
> -nal (married)
> -nI' (co-sibling)
As DloraH pointed out, {vavnI'} and {SoSnI'} mean "grandfather" and
"grandmother".
Ultimately, we could say that within the game, an older form of Klingon used
to have the words *{nI'} "a type of kin member" and *{nal} "spouse" (the
latter is also found in association with words meaning "uncle" and "aunt"
indicating aunts and uncles who married into the family). However, the
problem is that these words aren't attested individually in the language as
it stands today, and they're not productive (what does {jupnal} mean?). As a
result, calling these "suffixes" is probably a bit misleading. They're
probably just old nouns that were originally part of a noun-noun
construction, but got used so often together that they "fused" (so {loD nal}
"man spouse" became {loDnal} "husband").
There are other roots that aren't attested outside of compounds. *{jon} "to
engineer, to drive" (?) is known from {jonwI') "engineer" and {jonta'}
"engine". We just have to consider the fact that, if the etymologically more
complex word is in TKD but the simpler one isn't, we can probably safely say
that the simple one is not just unknown, but is likely to be improper
Klingon. After all, wouldn't the simpler word be much more likely to show up
in a dictionary if a complex word based on it was known?
Savan,
QeS 'utlh
tlhIngan Hol yejHaD pabpo' / Grammarian of the Klingon Language Institute
not nItoj Hemey ngo' juppu' ngo' je
(Old roads and old friends will never deceive you)
- Ubykh Hol vIttlhegh
_________________________________________________________________
Shopping made easy @ tradingpost.com.au
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Etradingpost%2Ecom%2Eau%2F%3Freferrer%3DnmsnHMetagv1&_t=753082530&_r=emailtagline&_m=EXT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.