tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 21 14:55:52 2008

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: cha' Hol ngeb mu'ghommey Daj vItu'pu'!

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

Steven Boozer wrote:
> SuStel wrote:
>>> *{paqpo'}  "librarian"?
 >
>> Ouch! No. Conceivably {paq pIn}, but more likely {paq vu'wI'}, or
>> something along those lines.
> 
> I've seen *{paqpo'} used on this list off and on for years.  I didn't coin 
> it; I found it in my notes when I searched "librarian".

Are you sure you haven't seen *{pabpo'} for "grammarian"? That was 
certainly a list invention. I don't remember ever seeing *{paqpo'} before.

>>> *{paqtej}  "bibliographer"?
>>> *{paqSuy}  "bookseller"?
 >>
>> I see no basis on which you can turn these into compound nouns. {paq
>> tej, paq Suy}. The first one is a little vague as well; "book scientist"
>> might mean several things.
> 
> Not to those of us in the book trade.  A librarian is not the same thing as 
> a bibliographer, who does more than compile bibliographies or reading lists!

I didn't say they were the same thing. I simply said that "book 
scientist" doesn't automatically say "bibliographer" to me. If you were 
to use it to describe a bibliographer, I'd understand you, but it'd be 
in a "We're speaking Klingon, and don't know a lot of specialized 
jargon" kind of way.

> If a *{Holtej} is a someone who studies or practices the academic subject - 

I only know of one {Holtej}, and that's a proper noun! As a common noun, 
I believe it would have to be a genitive construction, {Hol tej}, unless 
some Klingon were to tell Marc Okrand otherwise.

> or "science" if you prefer to dress it up! - of {HolQeD} "linguistics", 
> then a *{paqtej} would be someone who studies or practices the subject 
> *{paqQeD} "bibliography" as taught in library schools the world 
> over.  (Whether *{paqQeD} could stretch to mean the same thing as "library 
> science" (so-called) is another discussion.)

If your basic premise were correct, I would accept *{paqQeD} 
unhesitatingly. We do have more evidence regarding {QeD} in compound 
nouns, so I'd have a lot less trouble accepting *{paqQeD} as a 
well-formed word, regardless of the validity of *{paqtej}.

In all of these cases, using a genitive noun phrase instead of a 
compound noun means exactly the same thing and violates no rules, so 
should be preferred barring further information.

-- 
SuStel
Stardate 8306.3

Back to archive top level