tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 29 17:38:46 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: (n) orbit?
- From: HoD trI'Qal <triqal>
- Subject: Re: (n) orbit?
- Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 20:38:45 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Alan Anderson" at Jan 25, 95 06:59:40 am
> However, in the spirit of encouraging discussion, I offer this. As I was leafing
> at random through TKD, I came across the following relevant set of definitions:
> {Don} = (v) parallel, be parallel, go parallel to
> {HeDon} = (n) parallel course
> {He} = (n) course, route
>
> Since we also know that
> {bav} = (v) orbit
> I suggest we consider the possibility that
> {Hebav} = (n) orbital course or path ** proposed new word
> I'm proposing a newly _discovered_ word, of course, not a newly _invented_ one! :-)
*sighs*
I have a real problem with this. Although I like the idea, we can't just
go about trying to make new words based upon the ways we see the old ones
put together... UNLESS it is included in the list of grammar-rules we
already have. For example, we already know that we can combine nouns to
make new nouns: it says so right there on page 19. However, we canNOT
use *verbs* to form new nouns. You found an example in the KD which
obviously uses a verb? That's great. Okrand can do this. We can't. We
are bound by the rules he gives us. Until he gives us a set of rules for
combining verbs (if ever! and I would certainly don't think it is all
that critical a need of the grammar at this poing), we can't do it.
Not to sound harsh, but it doesn't matter if you 'discovered' it, or
'invented' it... you still can't do this. (I know it *sounds* harsh, but
when I was first learning, I wanted to do stuff like this as well...)
Anyone remember the various 'discovered'/'derived' family words we saw
somewhere? Was that in HolQeD or here on the list?
> If we stretch just a little, we might try to use {bav} as an adjective.
> {bav} = (v) orbit, be an orbit ** proposed extension to definition
> Then {He bav} would do just fine without needing an entirely new word.
Okay, that is really stretching too far. You can't do that. You are
asking to change the inherent meaning of the verb, now. That's a big
nono. That would be like me saying that <pong> means "to be named".
Sure, that would solve a lot of problems, but it it violates the rules we
have been given... as as charghwI' is so fond of pointing out, most of
the fun of Klingon is from trying to alter your own thinking so that it
fits the new set of rules... NOT to alter the new rules to match your
thinking.
(at least, I *think* it was charghwI'...)
*wonders if she is getting out of line again. owel...*
tlhInganna' jIHba'! {{:)
--tQ
--
HaghtaHbogh tlhIngan yIvoqQo'! toH, qatlh reH HaghtaH HoD Qanqor...?
--HoD trI'Qal Captain T'rkal ---------------------
tlhwD lIy So' IKV Hidden Comet | [email protected]