tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 19 07:04:30 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC: nuqDaq vIyIn?



>This is a KLBC discussion, so I let trI'Qal have the first crack at it, but
>she missed something vital: "peD" is not a noun.  It's a verb.  You can't
>stick a noun-suffix like "-Daq" onto a verb (without assuming a noun that
>we have no evidence for).  This is a tricky thing to keep straight; I
>misused "peD" the first time I tried also.  Just a point to remember:
>whenever you look something up, *make sure* you check its part of speech.
>So how would you do this?  I'm afraid the answer is likely beyond the scope
>of the KLBC.  You could do something like "peD[pu']DI' wej vI<<ski>>",
>using the "-DI'" verb suffix, meaning "I haven't yet skiied [after] when it
>snows".  There ought to be a better way... you could go on to "ghorDaq
>peDDI' wej ghojvam vI<<ski>>" (when it snows on ground, I haven't yet
>skiied on that ground)... if there were a good way to do the "ship in which
>I fled" problem you could talk about "ground on which it has snowed", but
>I'm getting beyond things here.

HIvqa' veqlargh.

Actually, not quite.  you're right; I missed this, but one of the "policies" I 
said I would follow is that I will not consider anything which is "debated" 
grammar as "incorrect", so I don't have to set "policies" on every "debatable" 
topic.  In light of that, he could have nominalized <peD> with -ghach, and I 
would accept it... since the idea of the KBLC is to help with learning and 
correction basic grammar, not to debate fine points.  So, I should have 

	wej peDghachDaq jI"ski"

or perhaps even used <peD> as an adjective:

	wej "ski" peD jIghoj.
	"I haven't learned to snow-ski yet."

Also debatable, but still understandable.

--HoD trI'Qal

Back to archive top level