tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 21 09:44:53 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingons conquer Worlds Chat (sort of...)
>Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 10:31:33 -0800
>From: "Christian Matzke" <[email protected]>
>Now I see where you are coming from. I believe I also may have found
>the source of my confusion. In HolQeD 3:2 page 13 Jonathan Van Hoose
>asked how to use nga'chuq in a sentence since it must always be the
>subject. He went on to say he had never seen a verb that would fit
>that construction. I now see that both Jon and I were mistaken. Your
>take on the word is much clearer. However, that does leave us without
>a noun for sex...
I'm not sure I'd sneer at "nga'chuqghach". After all, you're allowed to
-ghach verbs that have suffixes. And although "*nga'" may not be a valid
verb-form anymore, it surely started as "*nga'" + "-chuq", making it a
suffixed verb.
~mark