tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 08 22:50:28 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Phone message
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: Phone message
- Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 11:48:27 -0500
- In-Reply-To: Amy West's message of Tue, 08 Mar 94 23:33:47 PST <[email protected]>
>From: [email protected] (Amy West)
>Date: Tue, 08 Mar 94 23:33:47 PST
>On Tue 8 Mar 94 03:21, Mark E. Shoulson writes:
>>>tlhIngan veSDuj bortaS DaSIchpu' - You have reached the Klingon
>>>warship Bortas.
>> Maybe DaQum?
>>>rI'lIj wIjanglaHbe' - We are unable to answer your hail.
>> Um, I don't have "rI'" as a noun. Are we accepting implicit
>> nomilalizations? I'm still fuzzy on it.
>I figured that if there were a noun for "hail", then it would be
>{rI'}. Hopefully, putting a noun suffix on a root verb is enough
>to indicate nominalization without having to first put on a -ghach,
>which (according to some interpretations) is for verbs that end in a
>verb suffix. I don't know if this is acceptable standard procedure
>though because I've seen a lot of root verbs + -ghach.
Well, therein lies one of the current debates. There was apparently a
great debate about this earlier, in which people decided never to assume
nouns where they were not in evidence, but rather to use "-ghach" whenwver
needed. Or if not a debate, at least a silent agreement on this list.
Then Glen Proechel's article in HolQeD opened the can of worms up again,
and people started feeling that "-ghach" shouldn't be used on unsuffixed
verbs. The debate's still open; some people like assuming nouns not in
evidence, some use "-ghach" freely, some pull tricks like adding suffixes
of dubious utility (e.g. "-taH") before the "-ghach" just so it's suffixed.
Me, I'm too wishy-washy to take a stand; I just recast so I don't need the
noun anyway. Often it winds up better anyway (e.g. charghwI''s suggestion
on this. Not that it's necessarily better, but it's good).
>>>chuSdaq ponglIj rI'Se'lIj je junobchugh, vaj pIrI' - If you give us
>>>your name and hailing frequency at the sound, we will hail you.
>> "chuS" is also a verb. I'm also not sure about "-Daq" here; our
>> evidence points to "-Daq" as being spatial, not temporal. Maybe
>> "ghum DaQoyDI'..."?
>You're right about the -Daq.. I would have said {DaQoyDI'} myself
>if I were just writing it now.. but this was written some time
>ago. I guess "ghum" is OK, but a simple noun for "sound" would
>be nice.
Well, I didn't use it since it's a new word from the recent HolQeD, but
there is QoQ, which is given as "musical sound". Make of it what you will.
>Amy
>[email protected]