tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 19 07:04:30 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: nuqDaq vIyIn?
- From: trI'Qal <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: nuqDaq vIyIn?
- Date: Sat, 19 Mar 1994 15:58:42 -0400 (EDT)
*Beginner*
~markvo':
>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
offered:
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