tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 22 19:54:48 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC:Re double object verbs (EVEN MORE !)
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: KLBC:Re double object verbs (EVEN MORE !)
- Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 22:56:52 -0500
nuqHm writes:
>nuqneH,
>In digest 437, Marc Ruehlander's message, there is the word *chuvDIp* ...
>
>which is more applicable to the Klingon sentence with only one object and
>"chuvDIp".
>
>From the context I assume that "chuvDIp" is supposed to mean "Left-over nouns".
>Surely though, this is attempting to form a noun by adding a noun to a
>verb (an error which
>I have been guilty of in the past !).
It's not quite as bad as a verb-noun combination. {chuvmey} is a legitimate
noun, a grammatical term meaning "leftovers"; Marc's term can be seen as the
singular noun {*chuv} combined with the noun {DIp}. It's still not really a
good term, since we don't know that {chuv} can be a noun by itself, but it's
more reasonable than something like {*bIQpum}.
>I was under the impression that the only way to change a verb into a noun
>was to add *wI'*
>to one to simulate the English (and no-doubt American) *-er*.
>You couldn't enlighten me could you ?
Don't forget {-ghach}. (On second thought, maybe we *should* forget it.)
>In digest 436 Mark A. Mandel concludes with ...
>
>* * * gh a y ch a ' ! ! ! * * *
>
> >>> HUH ? <<<
He misspelled {ghay'cha'}, that's all. It's a "general invective", listed
on page 178 of TKD, section 5.5 of the addendum. Marc's exclamation is
obviously meant to express extreme frustration.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj