tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 24 15:19:45 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: Use of Verbs + types + -wI'

December 24, 1996 3:37 AM, jatlh peHruS:

> << >tlhutlhlu'wI'mey ghajbe' ghojmoHwI' pe''eghwI' je

> >From some discussiona long time ago about "Buy me a drink," we could now
> produce such words as {tlhutlhlu'wI'} for "drink, that which is drunk."

"We" never decided this.

>  {ghojmoHwI'} becomes "teacher"; and {pe''eghwI'} becomes "scorekeeper."
>  Others might include {ja'chuqwI'pu'} for "conferees."

I agree with all of these.

> Basically, I have searched through TKD looking for a reason why we cannot 
use
> a verb + -lu' + wI'.  I have not found any such reason.

Okrand did not write the dictionary with the thought of "forbid everything 
that is forbidden," he wrote it thinking "here's how it works."  Therefore, 
there are occasionally ideas which aren't expressly forbidden, but which just 
don't work.  I believe this is one of them.

> Still, most of the
> words I read on this listserv using -wI' to change a verb into a noun have
> -wI' on the bare stem.

I think ghunchu'wI' might disagree with you . . .

> I have not seen before anyone attempting to use verb
> + -lu' + -wI'.  I still seek comments as to the validity of such
> constructions.

I don't think it's at all valid.  When I read the above sentence, I stopped, 
said "huh?" tried reading it again, and couldn't make heads or tails of it 
(until I read what you were trying to do).  It wasn't just because I never saw 
it before -- I often encounter new constructions and have no trouble 
understanding them -- it was because the construction really just did not make 
any logical sense.  Only if you know what you are translating *into* will you 
understand how it works.

> After all, this construction opens up numerous possibilites
> for new translations of English nouns.

I have no desire to translate nouns.  I want to communicate.  Klingon relies 
on verbs, so I will focus on those.  I will not use lots of nouns just because 
English does.  Tell me: is there *any* other reason that anyone would want to 
form lots of new nouns?  (Sure, the few needed ones, like "table," would be 
nice, but we really don't need "thing which one drinks.")

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 96982.8

Back to archive top level