tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 07 06:59:40 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {-bogh} vs {-meH}
On Wed, 6 Dec 1995, Alan Anderson wrote:
> QetaH writes:
>
> >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.
As a name, it can be whatever he (?) wants. Grammar rules are out the
window when it comes to names. I think that's the consensus on this
list. We are also even willing to set aside normal Klingon phonology,
though we're more resistant to that as a rule.
> 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.
*sigh* This is the second time recently I've heard you equate compound
nouns with N-N constructions. (Perhaps 'equate' is too strong...) But I
really feel they are different. I think the clearest example of the
potential differences is /'Iwghargh/, which describes a type of worm.
Does this make at least as much sense as /'Iw ghargh/, as you suggest
above? I don't think so. Compound nouns and N-N are not the same thing,
you can't measure the acceptability of one by the acceptability of the
other. They have different purposes, different interpretations, and
different rules.
> -- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
--Holtej