tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 05 13:52:02 1993

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

mI'QeD



>From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
>Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 14:01:04 EDT
>X-Mailer: UVa PCMail 1.8.4
>Content-Length: 856


>> Subject: mI'QeD
>> 
>> As I recall, shortly before the list went off line there was some 
>> discussion on {vatlhvI'} "percent." I have come up with a theory
>> explaining the suffix -vI' as a reciprocal marker...

>While surely there will be objections to adding to the known grammar, I
>wish to offer my respect for this particular effort. It does seem to be such
>a simple addition that radically expands upon the ability to express
>fractions. This would fill a void that badly needs filling and if this
>doesn't fly, certainly nothing else will without Okrand's published blessing.

>I do suggest that on the small potential that this actually was adapted
>on this list, someone might wish to publish to the larger audience of HolQeD
>so that, like nga'chugh, it would be available to Klingon students who do not
>have Internet access.

We really have to be careful here.  Much as I like "-vI'" as a reciprocal
suffix (cf. Esperanto "-on")--and I do like it--there is its unofficiality
to be reckoned with.  Sure, it can be deduced (maybe) from vatlhvI', but
that's not likely to help a beginning student who's trying to find
{?loSvI'} in his mu'ghom.  Erg.  Then again, neither is the rather
well-accepted use of, say {leS} in {wa'leS} and {cha'leS}, which we can
almost certainly extend to {wejleS} etc.  I'm not really sure about this
one, I guess.  If we have to inform people about it since they can't get it
from other sources, that feels like neologizing to me.  nga'chuq is
different, since that was, after all, made by Okrand.

~mark



Back to archive top level