tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 22 06:10:22 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Comments on translations
>From: [email protected]
>Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 19:18:24 -0400 (EDT)
>> This one's tough; I'm not sure. It's true that "nuq" + "Daq" could be
>a valid derivation for "nuqDaq"--and if it isn't "nuqDaq" could be
>sufficiently fossilized as a form in its own right to allow for
>"nuqDaqvo'".
>The lists temporary grammarian ~ said that??!! With all due respect
>(snicker!snicker!) look at page 69 of TKD where Okrand states, "The word
>for /where?/, {nuqDaq}, is actually {nuq} /what?/ followed by the suffix
>{-Daq} /locative/." Not in any way, shape, or form to discredit your
>grammatical, O Great Official Temporary Grammarian ~, your knowledge of
>the language is in high status, indubitably. In fact, if Okrand had not
>informed us that the {-Daq} in {nuqDaq} is really the locativve marker,
>your theory would be valid. But, well, there it is. So, if ever one
>comes across the need for 'whence', just remember {nuqvo'}. This MIGHT
>also allow for my (grammatically-correct-but-not-canon-and-therefore-not-
>likely-to-catch-on-imesho) synonym for {qatlh}: {nuqmo'}.
Yes, I know what page 69 said. And you'll recall that I came up with
{nuqvo'} also, and agreed to accept {?nuqDaqvo'} tentatively because
Krankor thought it made sense. And there's something to it, page 69
notwithstanding (see Krankor's message). Even if {nuqDaq} is truly the
locative form of {nuq}, I wouldn't rule out its becoming so stuck in its
form as to lose that status, with use. True, I'm less willing to put forth
such derivations (see the arguments I've had with A.Appleyard over similar
situations). Note, too, that page 69 was written before "Daq" was added to
the lexicon as an independant word.
As to {nuqmo'}, I've also thought of it, and while Krankor might disagree,
I quite like it as perhaps a more long-winded/literary locution for
{qatlh}.
>{nuqDaq} is a syntactic marker, not an adverbial!
>{nuqDaq} is a syntactic marker, not an adverbial!
>{nuqDaq} is a syntactic marker, not an adverbial!
>{nuqDaq} is a syntactic marker, not an adverbial!
>And finally, boys and girls, always remember that
>{nuqDaq} IS A SYNTACTIC MARKER, NOT AN ADVERBIAL!!!@#$%^&*(yIlIjQo')*&^%$#@!
Qoychu'be' QoywI'vam... Daja'qa'laH'a'? :-) (joke!)
>This is Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos, signing offfffffffffffffffffffff--*
>'ach pabpo' pov ghaHbejtaH ~'e'
Why thank you!
~mark