tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 06 00:30:56 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: DS9
- From: [email protected] (HoD Qanqor)
- Subject: Re: DS9
- Date: Wed, 6 Jul 94 12:29:36 EDT
>According to HoD Qanqor:
>>
>>
>> tsk, tsk, tsk. While Amy can certainly be forgiven, 1000 shames on mark and
>> charghwI', who both let DaqDaq'e' pass without comment, charghwI' even going
>> so far as to use it himself in his own reformulation. Two type 5 noun suffix
>es
>> on the same word? I think not. Not unless all have opted for Proechelian
>> noun assumption and are trying to say "EAVESDROPPING PLACE".
>>
>> --Krankor
>>
>While I respect no other so much as my captain, I never once
>concidered the {-Daq} in {QongDaq} to be a suffix. Instead, I
>interpreted it (from the Conversational Klingon [CK] audio
>tape) to be a new word, similar to a compound noun (even though
>the first half of it is a verb) with the second noun being
>{Daq}, meaning "site, location (n)" from the appendix of TKD.
>Otherwise, we have to assume that {Qong} is a noun, unlike its
>listing in TKD, since verbs don't take a {-Daq} suffix.
>
>Might my captain reconsider this judgement?
>
>charghwI'
It might be nice if you would bother to actually read what I wrote. I
said nothing about QongDaq. I specifically said DaqDaq'e'. Go back
and read the correction you maid to Amy's post where she used this
specific word.
--Krankor