tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 07 07:35:43 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Names vs. new words?
d'Armond Speers wrote:
>
> 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.
Well I agree that {HomhgormeHtaj} is an ugly name. I only used it as an
example. Names for object seem to escalate into full descriptions too
easily.
But I do find a fine line between naming a thing and assigning a new word to
it. Is {betleH} considered a name for a type of {'etlh} or a word? Can I
*really* make up a name for a battle ax without it being considered a new
word?
QetaH
(Chet Braun)