tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 07 18:24:11 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
lo'laH, moSwav, latlh
- From: "Donald E. Vick" <[email protected]>
- Subject: lo'laH, moSwav, latlh
- Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 18:10:58 -0800 (PST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "David Trimboli" at Nov 7, 96 05:40:30 pm
>It's hard to tell, but my instincts have always told me that words listed in
>the dictionary like {jubbe'} and {pujmoH} are there simply because they seemed
>like obvious extensions to the language which would occur frequently. It is
>my opinion, but I don't believe that {pujmoH} is a seperate verb. You can't
>say *{pujmoHnIS}, you must say {pujnISmoH}. My belief isn't proven anywhere
>that I know of, but you certainly won't be wrong if you follow it!
Maybe I am excessively Klingomorphizing, but I'd think if they were just
"obvious extensions" he'd have skipped them. There are certainly enough holes
that he left for us to figure out. If he took the trouble to list them as
separate verbs, they ought to *be* separate verbs. My take on your example
would be that you could use the verb <pujmoH> and come up with <pujmoHnIS>
or you could use the *other* verb <puj> in expressing the same concept, and
come up with <pujnISmoH>.
taDI'oS vIq, law'wI'pu'vaD Holtej jIH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Thaddaeus Vick, Linguist to the Masses | [email protected] -or- |
| | [email protected] |
| gules on a saltire argent voided azure | |
| thirteen mullets of the second. Yeeha. | http://www.crl.com/~dvick |
----------------------------------------------------------------------