tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 08 11:20:43 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re[6]: ranks and titles (was Suppletion)
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re[6]: ranks and titles (was Suppletion)
- Date: Wed, 08 Nov 95 14:14:15 EST
On Wed, 8 Nov 1995 ~mark wrote:
>I don't think I buy that. There's really no evidence that there's any
>connection between the homophony and the meaning.
<snip>
Point well taken.
>Are there any examples of *noun* compounds at all where the sex comes
>first? I should think a canon example would suffice in the absence of
>anything better.
<major snip>
>Of course, it's also possible that "puqbe'" is a fossilized form from a
>time when the ordering was different, but in the absence of ANY clear
>examples to the contrary, it's all we have to go on.
I think that could be it. <puqbe'> (and <puqloD>) seem to be one of the few
compound nouns where the second noun describes the first. i.e. type of child.
Almost all the others, that I can find, are the opposite. <jolpa'> for
example, its a type of room, not a type of transport beam.
One thing to think about. It could be that <puqbe'> isn't a compound noun at
all. Now, wouldn't that really mess things up. {{;-) >
r'Hul