tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 15 09:20:13 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Noun phrase comparatives
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Noun phrase comparatives
- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 12:20:07 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Craig Altenburg" at Dec 14, 94 9:09 pm
According to Craig Altenburg:
>
> >According to charghwI'
> >Well, even with {yu'}, it doesn't work. While it does mean
> >"question", it is a verb, not a noun.
>
> Qu'vatlh, I don't have my HolQeD with me so I cannot cite anthing
> specific, but I though I understood from the "<-ghach>" interview with
> Okrand that we could use most verbs as nouns (without <-ghach>ing them).
NO.
Glen Proechel promotes this theory, but it was explicitly
denied in the interview with Okrand, and is explicitly denied
in TKD: "...it is not known if all verbs can be used as
nouns..." Okrand is the only person who can declare any verb
also function as a noun.
> If not specificly stated, this would surely be implied from the comment
> that a bare stem with <-ghach> is a marked form.
Not at all. Down that path goes chaos. In complex sentences, it
is already challenging enough to deal with the noun/verb words
we already have. To open the gates to using any verb as a noun
is to trash the clarity of the language.
In my humble opinion.
> >charghwI'
> >
> Qeygh
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |