tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 06 19:43:00 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-bogh} vs {-meH}
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: {-bogh} vs {-meH}
- Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 22:43:33 -0500
QetaH writes:
>So, as a name gormeH taj is OK? Even preferable?
It's okay as a *description* only if context permits it. As a *name* it
leaves much to be desired, but names are seldom sufficiently descriptive
to be used "cold" without an accompanying explanation. I know that the
words {batlh 'etlh} don't describe a {betleH}, but because I know it is
the name Kahless gave his sword, I know what it means. If you want to
name your axe, and if you show us the axe while telling us its name, then
you can reasonably expect *us* to understand what you mean when you use
its name. If your axe becomes famous, you can reasonably expect many
people to know its name.
Bottom line: don't expect anyone to understand {ghormeH taj} by itself.
>BTW, as a name can it be run together as in: HomghormeHtaj ?
Echhh, that's an ugly name. Aesthetics aside, the answer is NO!
The only way to make a new noun is to combine nouns, and {ghormeH}
is a verb.
Even when you *are* combining nouns, try not to get carried away with
"seamless" compounds -- anything that makes sense without spaces ought
to make at least as much sense *with* them.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj