tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 01 02:56:07 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
KBTP: Marcan vocabulary
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: KBTP: Marcan vocabulary
- Date: Fri, 1 Apr 1994 15:40:07 -0500
- In-Reply-To: "Kevin Wilson (DV 1994)"'s message of Thu, 31 Mar 1994 15:30:36 -0400 (EST) <Pine.3.07.9403311535.A23809-b100000@minerva>
>From: "Kevin Wilson (DV 1994)" <[email protected]>
>Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 15:30:36 -0400 (EST)
>On Thu, 31 Mar 1994 [email protected] wrote:
>> I heard {ngagh} on the tape. ({targhlIj yIngagh yIruch} "Go mate with your
>> targ") Imesho, you should be careful using these words for which we have no
>> written canonical examples. You might be right, but then again, if Okrand
>> ever comes out and tells us it was {ngagh} on the tape instead on {nagh},
>> you'll have to go back and change every one of those {nagh}'s. What a task.
>When I listened to the tape, I heard {nga'}, which I assumed was a
>shortened for of nga'chuq, giving us a canonical example for using {nga'}
>as a transitive verb without the type 1 suffix. Did anyone else think this?
Yeah, I thought of it, but my ears disagreed! Did you really hear a '
there and not a gh? It could have been mispronunciation; Okrand does that
from time to time, and he does say that a sufficienty emphatic ' may
partake of the gh nature, but it really didn't sound that way to me.
Now, maybe the two words are etymologically related, but that's another
question.
~mark