tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 19 19:51:50 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Compound Words & -ghach
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (The Songbringer -- Marnen to the common folk)
- Subject: Re: Compound Words & -ghach
- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 22:49:20 EDT
- In-Reply-To: <9310192317.AA04330@ bush.cs.tamu.edu>; from "Erich Schneider" at Oct 19, 93 6:17 pm
tlha'bogh Doch jatlh Qumpin 'avrin:
: From: email@example.com
: >['avrIn says: "chovghach" = "computer program(n)"]
ghobe'. \chovghach\ = <examination>. \ghunghach\ = <program>.
: >>I don't think there are rules for making arbitrary new compound words,
: >>so we have to stick to N-N constructions.
: >Well, they're discussed in TKD 3.2.1, and although Okrand doesn't say that
: >you can't, he also does not imply in the least that you can't. I think
: >most people would argue that you can.
: Who is this "most people"?
: In general, the rule on this mailing list list seems not to have been
: "if Okrand doesn't forbid it, go ahead". It is "if Okrand doesn't say
: it's legit, don't do it". After all, Okrand doesn't say that "-ngang"
: is forbidden as a type 5 noun suffix meaning "with(accompanying)";
: we won't use it, even though it would be nice if we had such a suffix.
[paragraph on >vi'< deleted]
: In a similar vein, the "discussion" in 3.2.1 boils down to "there are some
: nouns which are compound nouns". There is no discussion of how to
: produce new compounds, or what exactly new compounds would mean once
: made. Thus, on the list, we avoid doing so.
Do we? I see nothing wrong with making new compounds, since to my mind the
relevant passage in TKD implies (if not explicitly states -- I don't have TKD
here at the terminal) that N-N[-N[-N[...]]] compound words are a productive
class. It's always been my understanding that a N-N compound would mean much
the same as its components with spaces. Thus >ghunghachHol< would indeed mean
"programming language", >paqghitlhwi'< could mean "author", and so on.
: Caveat: I am not one of the pabpo'pu' (note that "pabpo'" "grammarian"
: from "grammar-expert" was a wildcat compound that probably would not
: be made today), so if I am spouting off nonsense I would appreciate
: hearing so.
As you'll see in the paragraph above, I'm not so sure >pabpo'< was a "wildcat
Qapla' Qichqengwi'vo' (btw, what does >'avrin< mean?)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | Marnen E.
| |/ \ \ / \ \ / \ \ | |/ \_\ | |/ \ \ / \_\ | |/ \ \ | Laibow-Koser
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |/ | | | | | laibow@brick.
|_| |_| |_| \_\|_| |_| |_| |_| \_\_/ |_| |_| | purchase.edu
| SUNY Purchase