tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 24 08:22:26 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC:Noun-like use of verbs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 06:49:23 -0700
>From: "Rob. [nuqHm] Newcombe" <[email protected]>
>Qong (v) sleep TKD
>QongDaq (n) bed TKW
>In this form is Daq still considdered to be a suffix,
>ie. is My bed = QongDaqwIj (treating *QongDaq* as the whole noun ) ?
This seems to be "Daq" the *noun*, "location." Thus "in bed" would be
"QongDaqDaq."
>What rules are there for using verbs in this manner ?
There aren't any. According to TKD, NOUNS may be compounded, but there is
no evidence that VERBS can be, or that verb-noun compounds (as QongDaq) are
a productive means of lexicalization. So basically, until we hear
otherwise, we don't have leave to compound verbs with nouns, and canon
cases like "QongDaq" are to be considered exceptions.
>In the addendum to TKD (page forgotten, but the nominalizer bit), Okrand is not clear about
>this manner, the nominalizer should only be used where there are suffixes on the verb...
He clarified it in a HolQeD interview. -ghach on bare verbs is considered
highly marked.
>Another (non-canonical) example...
>nargh (v) = (to) escape
>Could you construct narghDaq (n) to equal *Escape Route* ?
Well, "He" would be better, but again, verb-noun compounds are not
supported by the grammar as we know it. Escape Route is better "narghmeH
He" (supported by other canon examples like "ghojmeH taj" as well as by
descriptions of the grammar in TKD saying that you can use -meH phrases to
modify nouns).
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMfY/pMppGeTJXWZ9AQEy/wL+JZBWgxqLMXymPmeVwYOTMLZmnTw4Ojd6
93LSykVDq0sbcaFlvJ5ILrYiujAu4/B60YKL7/lg+rILkfGZUnmmk+UJ5qv7s7Nr
KnElbWhkRj0g2Ji9ZKQmBMuBn3hRDyJI
=LS1r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----