tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun May 14 08:16:34 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
{n/ng-a-'/gh/H}
On Fri, 12 May 1995 10:59:32 -0400, "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]> said:
> We know of know word "nga'". We know of a verb "nga'chuq", BUT
> we have no evidence that "?nga'" is productive on its own (anymore).
> The verb we have for "mate" is "ngagh", NOT "?nga'", which should
> only be used in "nga'chuq" (which should probably be used most of
> the time anyway.)
Ah, but do we *have* the verb {ngagh}? Has Okrand written it down for us?
Last I checked, the only source for this verb was the PK tape, and there
was some disagreement as to whether the initial was dental or velar and
whether the final was voiced or unvoiced.
I just listened to that place on the tape a dozen times in a row, and
I hear it as {naH}, with {nagh} as a close second and {ng-<whatever>}
a remote third. From the list's archives I know that Okrand has said
something about {ng-}, but I wonder if he can't have been influenced
by {nga'(chuq)}.
So what is a better course to take? Is it safer to say {ngagh} (or
{naH}, {nagh} or some other approximation to the thing on the tape)
or {nga'} (a back-formation from {nga'chuq})? If you use {ngagh},
you'll be wrong (and will fail to be understood) if your reading of
the tape is incorrect. If you use {nga'}, you'll be wrong (though
may still be understood) if for some reason the non-reciprocal form
of this verb is not used, or means something else. How do the odds
compare? Doqbe' SuvwI'pu' 'e' yIqaw. SuD chaH. There is a certain
amount of gambling involved in this.
Just something to consider.
--'Iwvan